Condensed from an original blog dated 13/4/2012.
Jim Gallacher received no response to his email inviting Nick Robinson to meet him. Instead Nick explained in a telephone call to Mortonjag that it might be ‘better if he didn’t meet Mr Gallacher’ as such a meeting ‘might compromise his position’.
Nick had agreed to analyse all available information ‘independently of the old committee’, before reporting back to Paul Gill and Chris McCorkindale, (with whom Mortonjag was also in contact), so that came as a surprise, especially when there were aspects of the matter which only Jim could explain in detail.
Mortonjag had met Paul Gill and Nick Robinson on the understanding that along with Chris McCorkindale they planned to ‘sort out the ‘Stars’ business internally’ using new information to be supplied by Jim Gallacher. It had also been agreed that Mortonjag and Paul would together formulate specific questions for the forthcoming committee meeting – the very first attended by the new members.
Nick’s reluctance to meet Jim, the one person able to clarify the ‘grey areas’ of the ‘Stars’ event, came as a surprise, and ‘conflicting interests’ sprung to mind, but he had seemed genuinely anxious to have the matter resolved, and so Mortonjag ‘accepted’ his position in good faith.
Jim Gallacher was disappointed. He had offered repeatedly to explain his side of events to Stuart Duncan and Co. and had been ‘blanked’ on every occasion. It smelled of ‘déja vu’ but, like Mortonjag, he decided to trust Nick’s professionalism, and the requested information and figures were duly supplied.
Amicable contact was maintained both with Nick and with Paul Gill – right up until the committee meeting on June 24th 2010 – as the following emails demonstrate.
Sent: 09 June 2010 09:55
To: Paul Gill
I’m sure you know that I met Nick and gave him some stuff to chew over. That was four days ago and I’ve had no response so far. I imagine I’ll hear in due course.
From: Paul Gill
Wednesday, June Cc: ‘NRobin9415@aol.com’
Subject: RE: It’s all gone very quiet!
I am well thanks, how are you and the good lady?
My biggest personal concern Ernie in all of this and it is purely a selfish one is that I am being dragged into what I believe to be a pot of lies, corruption and as I have mentioned downright bloody skulduggery. I am now being accused of “fraternising with the enemy” and it is not even my bloody war. Is it any wonder at all that I on a number of occasions now have come close to shoving two fingers up to the lot of it and walking away I ask?
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….
….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….
….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.
It was beginning to sound as though Nick was tying himself in knots. Having agreed to review the evidence independently of the ‘old guard’, and having said – ‘Once I have completed this work, I will then consider my position and discuss it with Chris and Paul’ – he was now making noises about the ‘Chairman having sufficient evidence to support the position’. Having frankly shared and discussed information with Mortonjag (a Trust member) in the Admiral Bar, he was making noises about being ‘bound by confidentiality’.
Mortonjag still clung to the hope that Nick had a true desire to get the matter sorted internally, and he and Paul Gill continued to discuss the issues which were to be put to the ‘old guard’ at the board meeting on 24th June.
The 2017 A.G.M. of the Greenock Morton Supporters’ Trust is due to be held by Friday 30th June. Members have been told that the Trust is awaiting the auditing of accounts. Given that the Trust has had six months in which to have those accounts audited, are members to presume that the auditors are presently on a round the world trip by tortoise?
WELL, CHAIRMAN FEENEY?