Last December, after Mortonjag was appointed by the Sheriff Court as Jim Gallacher’s official lay representative, he and Greenock Morton Trust member Gordon Dyer had a meeting with the Trust’s solicitor.
Mr. Harvey of Blair & Bryden, stated that he was ‘entitled to take instructions from the Trust Chairman’, but did not disagree when Mortonjag asserted that instructions were legally competent, only if they represented the views of the Trust membership.
Mortonjag then queried ‘legal advice’ cited in a ‘circular’ to members as the reason for vetoing a properly constituted Special General Meeting, and when Mr. Harvey appeared confused, Gordon Dyer invited him to read a copy.
The solicitor raised an eyebrow several times while reading the contents, before confirming that THE ADVICE THEREIN HAD NOT COME FROM BLAIR & BRYDEN, and asking – ‘Who is Feeney?’
Here is an extract from that circular.
Almost four months after the Trust’s A.G.M., its solicitor mistakenly believed that Mr. Robinson was still Chairman! Mortonjag’s readers may well be asking why that was so, but much more importantly –
WHERE DID THAT ‘LEGAL ADVICE’ COME FROM, as it most certainly did NOT come from the Trust’s solicitor?
Was a properly convened S.G.M. at which the Trust membership was to have stated its views on G.M.S.T. v Gallacher cynically brushed aside in yet another ‘Robbo’ scam intended to deceive the Trust membership and pervert the course of justice? The Wemyss Bay insolvency practitioner and Greenock Morton director is well known for his unique interpretations of ‘Scots Law’
Trust members will recall that at the conclusion of that circular, Chairman Feeney promised to keep members ‘fully informed as matters progressed’, yet there has been no formal announcement that the long standing Small Claims action against Jim Gallacher was dismissed in his favour, let alone any mention of the now obligatory public apology.
Instead, ‘consummate professional’ and Club Director Nick Robinson joked with the ‘guys’ on the unofficial fans’ forum, while attempting to suggest that ‘no costs either way’ somehow justified his reprehensible Trust Deed scam.
THE TRUST’S CLAIM WAS INVALIDATED AND THE TRUST LOST THE ACTION!
Mr. Gallacher is, therefore, entitled to full costs under Rule 105 of the constitution, and the matter will be decided either by the Sheriff Appeal Court, or pursued as a separate action.
Either way, the G.M.S.T. remains exposed to a potential £21k award in Mr. Gallacher’s favour.
Has the Trust committee made provision for that possible eventuality? Has money been ‘offloaded’ elsewhere since May 9th and if so ON WHOSE AUTHORITY?
THE MATTER WILL BE RAISED AT THIS YEAR’S A.G.M. IF IT EVER TAKES PLACE!
Meanwhile, and to Chairman Feeney, in terms of that promise to keep members fully informed.
What WAS the outcome of G.M.S.T. v Gallacher? Did you lose the action on the basis that the Trustee rejected Mr. Robinson’s unsubstantiated claim, and if so, what became of that ‘legal advice’ about a ‘solid case’ which Mr. Gallacher would fail to defend? Will you be seeking redress against the ‘legal adviser’ – AND why have the members not been updated on the now critical issue of the expenses appeal, Chairman Feeney?
Have you had further ‘legal advice’ to exclude the membership from matters which may threaten the Trust’s very existence?
AT THE FORTHCOMING A.G.M.,THE MEMBERSHIP WILL BE SEEKING ANSWERS TO MANY QUESTIONS.