Search Results for: FAN OF THE WEEK 5

GREENOCK MORTON FAN OF THE WEEK NO.5.

FotoFlexer_Photo

The Monkey and Fing have no hesitation in awarding this week’s coveted ‘gong’ to greenockmorton.org’s very own ‘Porky’ Paul Johnstone, the chubby little ‘sales executive’ who regularly eschews professional standards for the sake of a few green dots from sniggering like-minded dolts.

pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

 

Although Porky insists he’s no racist, his ‘Mueslis’ may disagree, and should you venture to challenge, be prepared to endure the unmoderated squealing of a stuck pig!

FotoFlexer_Photo

Racist or not, here are some of his favourite snapshots….

FotoFlexer_Photo

….and finally, he’s off to Easdale for another evening’s boring by Rousselle Van Bumshaften! 

 

 

despicable me flirting GIF

 

£4759 IMMEDIATELY OR WE GO TO THE POLIS!

 

£4759 IMMEDIATELY OR WE GO TO THE POLIS!

 

FROM ‘THE TILLY’ (a few weeks later)

 A police probe into the alleged disappearance of thousands of pounds from a Morton fans’ fundraiser has ended in no charges being brought.

 Detective Inspector John Dearie, of Greenock CID, said: “We interviewed the individual at the centre of it and the end result is there will be no charges”.

 DI Dearie also confirmed his team had established a small shortfall in funds from the event, which was held in November to honour the famous Ton team from 30 years ago.

He said: “There is a shortfall of a small amount of cash but this is probably due to the haphazard way it was organised.

“The shortfall is not a significant sum and nowhere near the sums talked about initially – it could be accounted for by bad business practice.”

Today, Greenock Morton Supporters’ Trust said they were ‘extremely disappointed’ by events surrounding the charity night.

Chairman Stuart Duncan said: “We are extremely disappointed the Stars of 1979 evening – attended by 280 people – produced a deficit to the Supporters’ Trust of £1,600”.

 Meticulous Mr. Duncan’s original figure of £4759 melted like proverbial snow off a dyke after the Webbles’ attempted ‘stitch up’ had failed. Meticulous Mr. Duncan had been expecting £5000 for his ill fated football Academy!

 WHAT A COINCIDENCE!

 

 

 

ONCE A TROLL – ALWAYS A TROLL!

THE ACCUSED

FotoFlexer_Photo

THE CHARGE

Persistent, gratuitous trolling of The Morton Forum, 

THE EVIDENCE. 

The prosecution cites – inter alia – the following:

1/ Transmutation of ‘Nickhead’ to ‘A club director’. (Now known as ‘Uncle Nick’).

2/ Allusions to ‘Pylon touchers’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Gypsies’, and ‘Nonces’.

3/ The blatant instance of ‘casual’ racism depicted.

THE DEFENCE

Mr. Johnstone’s defence to the charge of persistent gratuitous trolling of the Morton Forum – ‘AH ONLY DONE IT ‘COS TOBY MADE ME’.

 

THE VERDICT

The tribunal jointly chaired by their Lordships Monkey and Fing unanimously found Mr. Johnstone.

guilty

FotoFlexer_Photo

THE SENTENCE

Their Lordships sentenced Mr. Johnstone to life membership of the Brown Nosed Bum Boys Brigade and a shot of Toby’s bugle every Saturday evening.

cropped-fotoflexer_photo4.jpg

COMING NEXT – PORKY GETS A NEW NEIGHBOUR!

giphy2

 

THE NATIVES ARE RESTLESS!

cropped-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.jpg

FotoFlexer_Photo

The natives are restless on the Morton forum after ‘Ray’ deliberately fielded an under strength side against the Sons of the Rock last night.

There can be no defence of that cynical premeditated decision which arguably flouts S.P.F.L. regulations.

Once again, the Board of Directors has treated the ever diminishing loyal fan base with shocking disdain.

Nothing has happened in the last eight weeks to alter Mortonjag’s original assessment!

FotoFlexer_Photo

UP NEXT FOLKS – WHO’S BEEN KEEKING AT MORTONJAG’S BLOG?

head way GIF

 

despicable me lol GIF

THE VERDICT!

THE ACCUSED

FotoFlexer_Photo

THE CHARGE

Persistent, gratuitous trolling of The Morton Forum, 

THE EVIDENCE. 

The prosecution cites – inter alia – the following:

1/ Transmutation of ‘Nickhead’ to ‘A club director’. (Now known as ‘Uncle Nick’).

2/ Allusions to ‘Pylon touchers’, ‘Mueslis’, ‘Gypsies’, and ‘Nonces’.

3/ The blatant instance of ‘casual’ racism depicted.

THE DEFENCE

Mr. Johnstone’s defence to the charge of persistent gratuitous trolling of the Morton Forum.

FotoFlexer_Photo

THE VERDICT

Unanimously found:

guilty

FotoFlexer_Photo

THE SENTENCE

Their Lordships sentenced Mr. Johnstone to twelve months’ starvation diet.

for dummies skeleton GIF by jjjjjohn

 

 

 

 

 

F.A.O. GREENOCK MORTON TRUST MEMBERS AND DEBENTURE HOLDERS…

.. AND SPECIFICALLY F.A.O. TRUST CHAIRMAN ALLAN FEENEY AND HIS COMMITTEE.

FotoFlexer_Photo.jpg

cropped-fotoflexer_photo125.jpg
THE G.M.S.T. COMMITTEE IS JOINTLY AND INDIVIDUALLY

guilty

OF ENDORSING EX-CHAIRMAN ROBINSON’S PROVEN CRIMINALITY.

FotoFlexer_Photo.jpg

Ex – chairman Robinson’s failed Trust Deed scam and criminal abuse of the justice system have done the Trust inestimable damage. The Trust’s solicitor  has confirmed that all instructions were taken with your full delegated authority, which leaves you jointly and severally culpable.

THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER INDEED.

Last year, believing that ex-Chairman Robinson was acting ultra vires, Mortonjag formally invited you to clarify your position. Two separate ‘recorded delivery’ letters to the Secretary and a further to Cllr. McEleny (who soon resigned) were ignored. Secretary Sellar instead passed the correspondence to ex-chairman Robinson who later described them as ‘harassment’. Those facts are incontrovertible. You have let the membership down very badly indeed in cow-towing to a criminal.

When Sheriff Hall disallowed expenses on 9th May, the Monkey and Fing knew that for some reason he had not seen all of the evidence. They requested a second opinion, and a meeting took place in chambers last Thursday to discuss submissions to the Appeal Court. Sheriff Hall personally confirmed to Mortonjag that he is now privy to all relevant documentation.

During that meeting, Mortonjag cited evidence which proves that Blair and Bryden were instructed dishonestly, and suggested that they had been ‘led up the garden path’ by the ex-Trust Chairman.

Mr. Harvey did not disagree, and offered no objection to Mortonjag’s proposed adjustments relating  to Sheriff Hall’s draft ‘stated case’ for the Appeal Court.

FotoFlexer_Photo.jpg

Ex-chairman Robinson’s fatally flawed action was dismissed by the court because the Trustee had been assigned adjudication at the Trust’s request.

The trustee confirmed that AFTER EXAMINING IDENTICAL EVIDENCE TO THAT SUBMITTED TO COURT, he had invalidated the unsubstantiated claim and removed the G.M.S.T. from the creditors’ list.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee was obliged to examine ALL of the evidence which included the submissions of both agents and all witness statements from both parties. G.M.S.T. v Gallacher was purportedly a ‘debt recovery’ action, and the Trustee was fully qualified to examine all evidence before reaching a conclusion which was done under scrutiny by the Accountant in Bankruptcy. Mortonjag’s readers will recall that three of the Trust’s witnesses were guilty of making perjurious signed statements.

Mr. Gallacher is due full re-reimbursement of his legal expenses under Rule 105 of the Trust constitution, and a date is now awaited for the hearing of an appeal which is expected to succeed.

The G.M.S.T. committee must address the fact that ex – Chairman Robinson’s illegitimate manipulations have been discredited by the Trustee and the Court, and are now subject to further investigation. His ‘professional aegis’ is gone with the wind.

The ex-Chairman’s criminality is not new. He fraudulently submitted a claim on a Trust Deed in the full knowledge that no debt existed and to the detriment of proven creditors. He did so to alter the course of justice by preventing a hearing of G.M.S.T. v Gallacher in November 2011 because he knew the Trust was about to lose.

For several years the deceitful Morton F.C. Director has swayed opinion and adulterated the judicial process on the strength of his professional ‘standing’ and repeatedly made false statements in various media.

Within a three hour period, the following statements appeared on the now vanished official Trust forum. Those were merely the ‘tip of an iceberg’!

Simultaneously, non Trust members who openly questioned or challenged Mr. Robinson’s ‘authority’, were sent false information in unsolicited personal messages. All evidence has been retained for further investigation. 

by Nick.Robinson » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:39 pm

A couple of points on the discussion on here.

We should not now go to a proof. I do not believe that doing so will enhance or damage the reputation of the trust any more that not doing so but what is clear is that if the matter goes to proof it will cost us significantly more in our own legal costs than we can now recover. The facts are that if we win, we will only stand to gain a few pence in the pound at best. Jim Gallacher had no right to defend this case. Those rights vested in his trustee whom it seems, knew nothing about the claim until advised by me and consequently all of the legal costs expended by both sides and the court’s time have been wasted.

MR. GALLACHER DEFENDED THE CASE AND WON. THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED IN HIS FAVOUR ON 9TH MAY.

_________________________________________________

 I wonder who knew about Jim’s trust deed? It seems to me that the principal advisors here are damned either way. If Ernie did not know, his client has let him down fairly badly as the trust deed has major ramifications for the case. If he did know then his egotistical all seeing eye has failed to grasp some fundamentals of insolvency law and knowing and not disclosing it shows him for the manipulative and disturbed creep that he is. In either case, I think he can kiss goodbye to the costs incurred to date and explain that down under. 

MR. GALLACHER’S PRINCIPAL ADVISER WAS HIS SOLICITOR’S INSOLVENCY DEPARTMENT WHOSE ADVICE THAT THE G.M.S.T. WAS NOT A CREDITOR WAS CONFIRMED WHEN THE TRUSTEE REJECTED THE CLAIM.

___________________________________________________

Its a truism that many solicitors have only the vaguest understanding of insolvency but both of Jim’s solicitors to date should have known enough to be aware that the simplest way to have the action dropped would have been to inform the trust of the trust deed. Did they therefore know about it? Had we known about it, the case would not have proceeded and it was not recorded in the Register of Insolvencies when I checked in November 2010 prior to the case starting. To say as he did on Monday the trust deed was in the public domain is simplistic by the solicitor. He should know that his client has no locus to defend the case. 

THAT WAS A BLATANT LIE AS CONFIRMED BY THE ACCOUNTANT IN BANKRUPTCY! THE TRUST DEED HAD ALREADY BEEN PROPERLY ANNOUNCED IN THE EDINBURGH GAZETTE IN OCTOBER 2010.

___________________________________________________

I think you are missing the point guys. It is no longer legally competent for us to pursue Jim Gallacher any more than he has any locus to continue. Our debt is now the responsibility of his trustee and there is a defined legal process for us to follow laid out in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 to make our claim, the trustee to adjudicate on it and us to appeal if we think that necessary. What needs to happen now is for proceedings to be brought to a close as soon as possible and the facts are that the costs incurred by everyone, the trust and Jim should never have been incurred and I lay the blame for that firmly at the door of one man and its not Jim Gallacher!

ALL COSTS INCURRED BY MR. GALLACHER WERE THE RESULT OF A FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS LEGAL ACTION, ABUSE OF HIS TRUST DEED BY A NON- CREDITOR, AND A SUBSEQUENT ATTEMPT TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. MORTONJAG LAYS THE BLAME FOR THAT FIRMLY AT THE DOOR OF ONE MAN AND IT IS NOT PORKY PAUL JOHNSTONE.

In May of this year, in the mistaken belief that his criminality had escaped detection, ex-Chairman Robinson engaged with the ‘guys’ on the fans’ message board, where he continued to lie about the facts of the court case. 

FotoFlexer_Photo.jpg

THE ONLY REASON THE CASE WAS BROUGHT BACK TO COURT WAS FOR DISMISSAL IN MR. GALLACHER’S FAVOUR.
THE TRUST LOST THE MOMENT THE TRUSTEE REJECTED THE CLAIM!
AN IRONIC LECTURE ON ‘MORALITY’ FROM A PROVEN CRIMINAL LIAR AND , TO ILLUSTRATE THE POINT, ELEVEN WEEKS LATER THERE IS STILL NO SIGN OF THE PROMISED CIRCULAR WHILE THIS YEAR’S A.G.M. IS NOW LONG OVERDUE.

THE AFFAIRS OF THE G.M.S.T. ARE BEING CAREFULLY MONITORED.

FotoFlexer_Photo.jpg

From the constitution:

FotoFlexer_Photo

More:

FotoFlexer_Photo.jpg

On 9th May, the Trust’s civil action was dismissed because an unsubstantiated claim had been invalidated by a Trustee, and removed from the list of creditors. Here’s what the Scottish Courts’ website says about dismissal:

FotoFlexer_Photo

FACTS:

1/ On 9th May, in Greenock Sheriff Court, the pursuer stated untruthfully that the Trustee had not adjudicated on the pursuer’s claim. He HAD! He subsequently invalidated the pursuer’s claim and removed it from the creditors list after the Accountant in Bankruptcy investigated the administration of the Trust Deed.

2/ On 9th May, in Greenock Sheriff Court, the pursuer lied to the court, claiming to have done due diligence before raising the action. The pursuer had not. The pursuer’s account has been refuted by an official statement from the Accountant in Bankruptcy.

3/ In reaching a decision to withhold expenses from the defender, Sheriff Hall was apparently unaware of critical documentation from the former, and relied substantially on fraudulent statements designed to pervert the course of justice.

4/ Mr. Gallacher has always been entitled to re-reimbursement of full legal expenses under the provisions of Rule 105 of the Trust constitution.

ONCE AGAIN – F.A.O. G.M.S.T. CHAIRMAN – ALLAN FEENEY, SECRETARY – MARY SELLAR, AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS – RYAN DEEGAN, CLAIRE MELVILLE, AND LAURA WOHLGEMUTH
FotoFlexer_Photo.jpg

The issue of expenses is now to be decided by the Sheriff Appeal Court, and a hearing date is awaited.

You are constitutionally obliged to update the membership on the Trust’s exposure to a potential award of £21k, and to convene an A.G.M. without further delay.

Members require reassurance that provision has been made for the contingent debt of £21k, and will seek clarification regarding a reported transfer of a substantial sum of money from the Trust’s account while an appeal is pending. 

FotoFlexer_Photo

G.M.S.T. v GALLACHER HAS BECOME A VERY SERIOUS MATTER INDEED, WHICH WILL NOT ‘GO AWAY’,

THE OUTCOME IS GUARANTEED TO STIMULATE PUBLIC INTEREST.

FotoFlexer_Photo

 

 

F.A.O. CHAIRMAN FEENEY.

Good morning Allan. It’s hard to believe that you’ve been in that big chair now for over nine months and hardly uttered a word. Hopefully you haven’t been keeping quiet on legal advice that hasn’t come from a lawyer! 

Anyway, you’ll no doubt be banging off the A.G.M. invitations this coming week. The members don’t want any more of your predecessor’s scandalous omissions, and have LOADS of questions for the Trust board. One of those which is also attracting interest elsewhere is this. Following the recent dismissal of G.M.S.T. v Gallacher,

WHEN IS MR. GALLACHER LIKELY TO RECEIVE A PUBLIC APOLOGY PLEASE?

screenshot_10

Just in case you’re in any doubt about rules and legal matters, take no notice of bumbling old Nick, and listen to someone who is only interested in publication of the truth and exposure of injustice. Here are two helpful wee excerpts:

FotoFlexer_Photo

FotoFlexer_Photo.jpg

So we’ll be having that A.G.M. by the end of the month, thanks!

Now, have a peep at the following aides mémoire, and consider the implications for the Trust – particularly in the light of your predecessor’s unwarranted trumpeting on the fans message board. Did he really offload all that members’ dosh to Warren Hawke recently?  Did the members think that was a good idea young Sir?

FotoFlexer_Photo

Nothing ambiguous there.

Screenshot_5

A decree of dismissal is also a decree in favour of the defender. Mortonjag wonders if Mr. Gallacher’s solicitors know about this!

Screenshot_2

Nothing to worry about there! Did you ever see a copy of Mortonjag’s letter to the Secretary, by the way?

FotoFlexer_Photo

Mrs. Mortonjag can hardly wait for the A.G.M., Allan!

cropped-bf2d0-the2btoadmeister1.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DUNCO’S BIG CASH BASH!

fotoflexer_photo

THIS WAS FIRST PUBLISHED ON MARCH 11th 2010

Stars Of 79 Night 6th Nov, 30 Years Since We Topped the Premier League

Written by Sean (Donnelly) Tuesday, 23 June 2009:

‘As some may know, the Greenock Morton Supporters Trust have planned a night to celebrated the 30th Anniversary of the Players and Staff who took us to the top of the Premier League away back in 1979. The Date is 6th Nov 2009, venue Port Glasgow Town Hall, 1900-0100am………. The aim is not to make money but to make it as cheap as possible so ‘real fans’ can get along, any money that maybe made will go to the new Greenock Morton Football Acadamy’.

The above announcement preceded an event which was declared an outstanding success by all who attended.  Jim Gallacher who co-organised the event with Sean Donnelly and with whom he was       JOINTLY responsible for the largely cash dealings, received the following emails from respected ex-players:

Jim

Just want to say thank you for a great night. So glad I came. To see all the lads again was brilliant.
What a great bunch and not a bad team too!!

Thanks Again
Joe McLaughlin

Hi Jim

It was a fantastic night on Friday. You and your fellow members did us proud. It was good to see my team mates again also be in amongst my ‘ain folk’, the fans.

They were different class.

I’ve just watched the DVD for the 3rd time, brill.

Thanks again and good luck wi’ your new manager.

Jim Holmes

Perhaps the aim had not been to make money, but things turned sour when an apparent deficit emerged. The finger of blame was pointed at Jim Gallacher, who became the subject of a C.I.D. investigation. He was questioned extensively,  the Trust ‘evidence’ thoroughly scrutinized, and subsequently this report appeared in the Greenock Telegraph:

No charges in fan cash probe

by Russell Steele

A POLICE probe into the alleged disappearance of thousands of pounds from a Morton fans’ fundraiser has ended in no charges being brought.

The Tele recently revealed detectives had been called in by Greenock Morton Supporters’ Trust after they suspected a substantial four-figure sum had vanished from their recent Stars of 1979 night. But officers have now completed their investigation – and say no one will be prosecuted. Detective Inspector John Dearie, of Greenock CID, said:

’There has to be a proper paper trail and accounts, and in this case that was missing. There is a shortfall of a small amount of cash but this is probably due to the haphazard way it was organised. The shortfall is not a significant sum and nowhere near the sums talked about initially – it could be accounted for by  bad business practice’.

The Trust, however, seemed determined to ’get its man’, and on the very day the ‘Tilly’ report appeared, the following announcement was posted on Greenockmorton.org – Mr David Bell’s ‘Tontastic’ website from which Mortonjag has been banned for asking questions:

Those sentiments were echoed shortly thereafter by the Trust Chairman on David Bell’s message board and on the Trust website:

Written by Stuart Duncan  

Saturday, 30 January 2010

The police probe into the events surrounding the Stars of ’79 event has been dropped. They have completed their investigation and said no one would be prosecuted.

The Supporters’ Trust are extrememly disappointed, given the information we supplied to the police, that no action is being taken.

Chairman Stuart Duncan said: ” The Supporters’ Trust has organised many successful fundraisng events over the years where we have raised a great deal of money that has gone to Morton youth – such as the Champions’ Party in Greenock Sports Centre  and last year’s Fans’ Game at Cappielow, which raised £5000.”

“We are extremely dissapointed the Stars of ’79 evening – attended by 280 people – produced a deficit to the Supporters’ Trust of £1600. The Supporters’ Trust may pursue a civil action to recover money and items which are still due to them.”

Incidentally, Jim Gallacher had been heavily involved in the organization of that  Fans’ game without a murmur of dissent!

Fully five weeks elapsed before this announcement appeared on the Trust Website, a link to which was inevitably posted by Mr Donnelly on David Bell’s ‘propaganda platform’.

Update on Stars of ’79 Event  

Written by Stuart Duncan  

Friday, 05 March 2010

The Supporters’ Trust have now completed their own investigation into the affairs of the Stars of ’79 Celebration evening.

Many lessons have been learned.

As a result of those  investigation, which resulted in representatives of the Trust speaking to many people not previously spoken to by the police, a report has been compiled on the events leading up to the evening, the activities on the night of the event  and activities that took place after the event. Given the contents of the report The Board of the Trust have agreed to seek legal advice as to what action is now available to them.

We will keep you updated on any developments.

That was fully a week ago.  Mortonjag is watching with great interest for news of ‘any developments’, though the Trust’s only consistency appears to be that ALL things take time!

Meanwhile:

‘Many lessons have been learned’. Could one of those relate to the C.I.D.’s perception of:

‘Bad business practice’?

It is common knowledge that the Trust encouraged cash payments for goods and services. It has been suggested that that was deliberately done to avoid having to pay V.A.T. 

…….And as D.I. Dearie said when he cited ‘bad business practice’:

’There has to be a proper paper trail and accounts, and in this case that was missing’.

Should the Trust have known better? Is it remotely conceivable that the experienced Chairman of an organization responsible for some £120,000 of supporters’ money – a man renowned for his complicated facts and figures ‘answers’ to simple questions – could have been unaware of his own rules?

Perhaps the answer lurks within Mr Duncan’s concession that ‘many lessons have been learned’, though ‘his’ rules may be easily accessed by anyone who dares to question the Trust (with the implicit caveat that such behaviour may damage ones reputation and/or professional standing).

RULES OF THE SOCIETY

  1. The Society is to keep proper books of account with respect to its transactions and to its assets and liabilities in accordance with Sections 1 and 2 of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968.

 …and here are those two sections of that Act:

Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968

Books of account, etc

(1)Every society shall—

(a)cause to be kept proper books of account with respect to its transactions and its assets and liabilities, and

(b)establish and maintain a satisfactory system of control of its books of account, its cash holdings and all its receipts and remittances.

(2)For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the preceding subsection proper books of account shall not be taken to be kept with respect to the matters mentioned in that paragraph if there are not kept such books as are necessary to give a true and fair view of the state of the affairs of the society and to explain its transactions.

‘Establish and maintain a satisfactory system of control of ALL ITS RECEIPTS AND REMITTANCES’

It seems to Mortonjag that the Trust deliberately ignored its own rule (113).

The Trust committee has corporate responsibility for prudent stewardship of members’ finances. That CANNOT be escaped. Attempting to transfer to one individual total responsibility for a catastrophic financial farce of the Trust’s own making  just ‘doesn’t wash’.

DUEL MORALITY! F.A.O. G.M.S.T. CHAIRMAN ALLAN FEENEY.

At the recent A.G.M. of the Greenock Morton Supporters’ Trust a motion to convene an S.G.M. to discuss ‘G.M.S.T. v Gallacher’ was proposed by Board member Cllr. McEleny, seconded by Trust member Eric Marshall and duly ‘minuted’.

Constitutionally defined fiduciary duty of care obliges the committee to ‘obey the wishes’ of the membership at all times. Unless G.M.S.T. v Gallacher is ratified by the membership the action becomes void.

That is the law of the land and so Mortonjag has been confused by the contents of a recent letter sent to the membership (which includes Mrs. Mortonjag) by new Trust Chairman Allan Feeney. In particular the following appears somewhat contentious:

‘WE HAVE HAD LEGAL ADVICE THAT SUCH A MEETING WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AS WE WOULD BE DISCUSSING MATTERS RELATING TO THE CASE WHICH ARE NOT REALLY FOR THE SEMI-PUBLIC FORUM THAT A GENERAL MEETING INEVITABLY IS‘.

Not really for a ‘semi-public forum’ Mr. Feeney? What then will the sheriff make of the now disappeared OFFICIAL Trust forum of 2011 which was open to members and non- members alike? Mortonjag has retained a full copy, and here is an excerpt in which intricate details of the court action are openly discussed:

 Tonsilitis  Nov 6 2011, 11:25 PM

Post #54

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 4,916
Joined: 13-July 05
From: Wemyss Bay
Member No.: 63

QUOTE(Scotsguy40 @ Nov 6 2011, 10:44 PM) 

The thing here is trust if you pardon the pun. What credibility fellow supporters have for the Trust will determine what support you get from the rank and file fan.
Some of we ‘neutral’ fans who are loan note holders sat back and read what was being slung about on this very forum and were aghast at the behaviour of individuals on the Board. 
This could have been dealt with swiftly and in house without it being slung over an internet forum. So what has changed exactly?

This man talks sense!!
Transparency. 
This is the perfect forum to let us know the true detail of what has gone on. What a perfect opportunity for the GMST to apologise for its handling of the whole affair.
We’ve read the innuendo from the third party, lets hear your side. 
What a perfect opportunity to put it to bed, sell your future plans and regain confidence in GMST.
I am going to apologise to fans reading this thread as I should not rise to the bait and in that you were correct Andy. I am, however, human and there does come a point when even trust chairmen lose the rag! 

I will not and nobody at the trust is going to apologise for trying to recover money we believe was owed to us, nor am I going to apologise for things that went on on this board before all bar one of us who are on the trust board were members of the trust board. Like many, I think that the whole trial by message board saga was wrong but neither I nor any of the current board had anything to do with that. 

As for transparency, we have been engaged in a court case and we have not been prepared to discuss the detail of it on a public forum. It’s called behaving professionally. We promised we would report to members and are holding an SGM to which loan note holders are invited, partly for that purpose given that the case is more or less over. That last statement is not arrogance, merely fact!

I want to move things on now and I am hoping that our actions and deeds will demonstrate pursuit of our core objectives and that what we are about is in the interests of all Morton fans. I realise that some people have to be won over and some never will be – you can’t please all of the people all of the time and all that – but if people do not want to hear what we have to say, it will not be for want of trying on our part!

 cmdc  Nov 8 2011, 08:32 AM

Post #135

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 2,101
Joined: 3-December 06
From: Greenock
Member No.: 2,108

Rasta, the comment that was “throwaway rubbish” was a personal and sweeping attack on every board member by a guy who has never or barely ever met the board. Criticism is part and parcel of this type of thing, and I’ve tried to respond to it on this and other threads, but stuff like that is not really criticism. 

On the Stars thing: we are NOT pursuing an action as such; we’ve had the case sisted and will resist any attempt to revive it. If we are able to draw a line here we’ll call an SGM to give account for the whole saga to members and loan note holders alike.

 cmdc  Nov 8 2011, 12:10 PM

Post #150

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 2,101
Joined: 3-December 06
From: Greenock
Member No.: 2,108

QUOTE(Alibi @ Nov 8 2011, 11:29 AM) 

I thought the case was an open and shut matter. 

I’ve never said that, or anything like it.

Why has it been mothballed?

We’ll explain this at the SGM.

What are the total costs to the Trust to date?

We’ll set this out at the SGM. In short: less than four figures.

Surely the case has to be allowed to proceed to ensure that justice is done? If money has been invested in taking the case this far, what has caused the Trust to do an emergency stop? 

Again, this is for the SGM. In short: because, in our view, the defender lacked the locus to defend the action. Therefore, in our view, the case CANNOT proceed because it is (for reasons that were unknown at the time of raising the action) legally incompetent to pursue it.

It was stated further back on the thread that the defendant has actually put up the money that is sought – that doesn’t sound like the action of someone who knows he is in the wrong, which is a bit worrying. 

It’s hard to answer that without going to the substance of the case, so – again – I’ll leave it for the SGM.

As a loan note holder who has basically been told that it’s not a loan, it’s a donation unless you can prove malnutrition,

You’ve been told!? Come on…you knew fine well the terms of the loan note when you entered it. It’s not like we’ve suddenly moved the goalposts. It IS a loan, and not a donation, because – for example – in the event of the Trust ceasing to trade, you have an etitlement to have your money returned. If it was a donation, you would have no right over the money at all.

 cmdc  Nov 8 2011, 01:44 PM

Post #155

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 2,101
Joined: 3-December 06
From: Greenock
Member No.: 2,108

QUOTE(Alibi @ Nov 8 2011, 01:16 PM) 

Seems to me that someone who is able to put money on the table before a judgement has been made must be in a position to say “bring it on” and must also be fairly confident of winning. The inference I would draw is that someone is maybe thinking that the Trust has been put in an exposed position financially and is trying to limit the damage.

I do find it hard to credit that something that has gone on this long has only accrued a legal bill of less than four figures for either side. If I as much as say good morning to my solicitor it costs me £200.

In bold – look, I can’t answer that without going into the substance of the case and I’m not prepared to do that on a public forum. 

Rhubarb Mess: this isn’t us getting out by the back door, it’s us following the law as we see it. I wouldn’t think a court is the best place for us to ignore the law and plough on regardless!

In italics – You might find that hard to believe, but that is the position and we can account for that at the SGM. 

This post has been edited by cmdc: Nov 8 2011, 01:47 PM

 cmdc  Nov 8 2011, 02:38 PM

Post #162

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 2,101
Joined: 3-December 06
From: Greenock
Member No.: 2,108

QUOTE(chrissiboi @ Nov 8 2011, 02:23 PM) 

I would have thought there is more than money at stake here. I would have thought since the new board of the Trust continued to persue this case their credibility is up for debate.

It doesn’t matter what is at stake if the law doesn’t allow us to pursue the claim through the court. If we do end up in a full hearing the case isn’t about credibility, it’s about trying to win an award from the court. Nothing more, nothing less. Any issue of credibility will need to be dealt with separately after the case is finally resolved one way or the other.

The reason for the sist and you say the Trust would be unable to recover any monies owed. 

Not really, but once again I couldn’t discuss that without going into the substance of the case so I’ll need to save it for the SGM.

Was this a situation you as in the Trust should have been aware of earlier ? Was it an oversight from the previous administration ? 

No oversight, no. However, I can’t say much more about that without going into the substance of the case, so I’ll save it for the SGM.

So what happens if the court allow the case to come back into the court calendar what then?

Then we’ll put our case to the court.

 Tonsilitis  Nov 8 2011, 05:14 PM

Post #178

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 4,916
Joined: 13-July 05
From: Wemyss Bay
Member No.: 63

QUOTE(Rhubarb Mess @ Nov 8 2011, 04:29 PM) 

It doesn’t matter what is at stake if the law doesn’t allow us to pursue the claim through the court. If we do end up in a full hearing the case isn’t about credibility, it’s about trying to win an award from the court. Nothing more, nothing less. Any issue of credibility will need to be dealt with separately after the case is finally resolved one way or the other.

The below statement has appeared on ‘the blog’. Seems to me this lawyer has a difference of opinion.

As I have often advised in recent months, ignore what the Trust is telling the members. They consistently show that they either do not understand what is happening or are lying.’

IF it goes ahead and IF you lose how much will it cost the trust?? Losers in these usually pick up the tab, does the trust have some sort of exemption from the norm or are you going to use the sist and the ignorance of the bond to try and aportion blame elsewhere if you drop it?

It won’t work.
2 men and a congratulatory dug!! The dug being the one with the pertinent barks.
The case will be over shortly. The summary on the blog is, as usual, riddled with both factual and legal inaccuracies as will become clear to everyone shortly. It is so wrong, that I seriously doubt if the advice it purports to interpret actually came from the firm of lawyers in question. 

I don’t intend to reply further on this thread as there is nothing more to say and nothing that will change the opinion of those who prefer to believe something else

 cmdc  Nov 8 2011, 05:58 PM

Post #182

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 2,101
Joined: 3-December 06
From: Greenock
Member No.: 2,108

QUOTE(Rhubarb Mess @ Nov 8 2011, 05:23 PM) 

There is only one conclusion that will keep your head above water and thats going through to full hearing. Any attempt to use the law to get this dropped, while the defendant has lodged a bond, will be indefensible no matter what way its twisted.

Well, if the case is dropped it is because THE COURT agrees with our interpretation of the law. It doesn’t make sense, just because a bond might be put in place, that we should ask the court to ignore (our understanding of) the law and proceed. Why would a court ignore the law just so the Trust can save face? For one, if we won they could simply argue that the legal action was incompetent and therefore the bond is worthless.

Now, it is right that the other side has a different interpretation of the law, but we’ve consulted lawyers and insolvency practitioners and are comfortable with the position as it stands.

On your earlier post re: costs – the small claim court restricts the maximum award of costs, so if the worst came to the worst and the case went to a full hearing in which the Trust lost on all the relevant points the costs would be restricted to around £300-500.

 Tonsilitis  Nov 10 2011, 09:42 AM

Post #290

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 4,916
Joined: 13-July 05
From: Wemyss Bay
Member No.: 63

QUOTE(TONofmemories @ Nov 10 2011, 08:49 AM) 

Is the real reason your doing all of this because you know your ” Reputation ” is tarnished and you want to gain some respect back. Just a question, dont shoot me down, your highness !!
Of course I would prefer people not to have a view of me based on my role in trying to sort out a mess, not of my making but which I have approached honestly as anyone who does know anything about what I have done will attest. Does anyone seriously think I would put a forty year career as a chartered accountant at risk over a £2/3000 debt?

Of course I would prefer people not to have a view on me based on the smear, innuendo and downright lies put forward by a person who clearly has mental problems. Does anyone think I like having pictures of me hanging from a tree or having pictures of my house and other personal details published or being called a liar by a man who does not understand the concept of truth!. Regrettably, there is little I can do about that as you cannot win an argument with a madman. 

The real reason I am involved in this is because it’s what the trust is about and we are aiming to get on with life.

I have stated my reasons for this. Maybe you would like to share with us why you have such an intimate knowledge of the detail of the trust case that you can dismiss it as being no case? Are you an accountant? Maybe you have reviewed our figures and can point out where they are wrong? If you can that will be good because it’s not something anyone else has managed so far!

Alternatively, maybe you think we should just have forgot about the whole thing and, if you do, that’s a valid argument made even more valid with the benefit of hindsight. We opted to try to recover money we believed and still believe was/is owed to us. At the time that decision was made, that was a valid option also, more so than doing nothing!

 Tonsilitis  Nov 19 2011, 10:35 AM

Post #699

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 4,916
Joined: 13-July 05
From: Wemyss Bay
Member No.: 63

QUOTE(chrissiboi @ Nov 19 2011, 12:44 AM) 

Well if the Trust can happily trot out everything is fine on the good ship GMST why not respond to them.

Your issue is obviously with me as I clearly disagree that any shares in a business that hasn’t made money since …. when you tell me but those loses would not worry any potential buyer or even a supporters buy out.

The trust can’t even sort out the mess of their own doing but we are supposed to put that aside and suddenly they are all successful.
Without wishing to stir the pot, I am intrigued to know why you think we are not sorting out our ” own mess” as you put it. The court case will conclude shortly with little cost to the trust, despite anything you may read on blogs or e-mails from a third party. We have significantly improved relations with the club. We are working to try to get an organisation put together that has genuine credibility as a voice of the fans, entitled to question how the club is run.

Our accounts and other administrative issues are up to date and in order. We communicate with our members on a far more regular basis. We are revamping our communication channels and now include social media in those. Our website will be re-launched shortly and we have a number of ideas to generally improve the fan experience in visiting it. We have a business plan for the next five years in draft which we will release to members in the next few months.

Which mess of our own making are you referring to?

 cmdc  Nov 19 2011, 01:41 PM

Post #702

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 2,101
Joined: 3-December 06
From: Greenock
Member No.: 2,108

QUOTE(chrissiboi @ Nov 19 2011, 01:20 PM) 

What an open and shut case that will now be dismissed on a technicality that the defender is fighting to overturn.

So there is no chance of this case being called into the court calendar ?

Chrissiboi, with all due respect you know nothing about the substance of the case, or about the decision making behind it, the sist, and any future development. This talk of ‘technicalities’ is uninformed nonsense,

 Tonsilitis  Nov 19 2011, 07:31 PM

Post #729

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 4,916
Joined: 13-July 05
From: Wemyss Bay
Member No.: 63

QUOTE(capitanus @ Nov 19 2011, 07:24 PM) 

A Debt for Equity swap is only of use if it removes a debt balance owed by the company. Therefore I agree with both yourself and Jim McColl, if you have assets of £1,000,000 and liabilities of £500,000 then your net worth is £500,000. Anyone that is paying a mortgage or a car loan etc. would be able to understand that.

The big problem for Morton FC is that the Debt for Equity swap didnt clear the debts, as the monies owed by Morton FC to Golden Casket are still there and a concerning millstone around the neck of the club and the club are continuing to make a loss going forward. It is simply unsustainable.

However, 

In saying all that, I was one of very few folk who were voicing concerns about this as early as 2004 and the GMST who had representation on the board didnt seem to do much in the way of putting the brakes on some of the reckless spending and bad decisions by DDFR which have cost us dearly since then. Why are you suddenly voicing concern about this?

Is it a smokescreen to divert everyones attention away from your own troubles?
What troubles are those? If you are referring to the court case, all will become clear in due course but there is a lot of misinformation about what is going on, including the major issue described as a technicality by the ill informed.

As for the debt, it was removed in full at the last share issue but the key issue is the volume of losses the club makes every year which means that the debt has built up again in the last couple of years. That is the true issue that needs addressed!

 cmdc  Nov 21 2011, 11:02 AM

Post #761

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 2,101
Joined: 3-December 06
From: Greenock
Member No.: 2,108

QUOTE(chrissiboi @ Nov 21 2011, 10:32 AM) 

I thought the legal issue was over ? You as in the Trust or as a seperate individual have said that the case is sisted and due to circumstances which aren’t a technicality will not be an issue, I was misinformed but now that the Trust has clarified this everything can carry on.

Whoo hoo get old Nick on the board at GMFC and we’ll see the future of the club safe at last and Dougie will be able to turn a profit.

Chrissiboi, I don’t know if you are misinformed, or stirring, or just ignorant about the situation, but a sist is a suspension of the case, not a termination – as we’ve explained on numerous occassions. The suspension is indefinite, but it is open to either party to attempt to have the case recalled (albeit they would have to put a convincing case to a sheriff as to why this should happen). Until it is heard in court or dismissed the issue is ongoing. As far as we are concerned the case is (a.) suspended, and so not an immediate priority, and (b.) in the hands of our lawyer so that the Trust board can do what it is in place to do. Quite why you think that’s a problem is beyond me. I’m pretty sure AXA Insurance didn’t stop doing business while it waited on the outcome of last month’s judicial review. 

Re: the bit in bold – there is a lot of good stuff on this and other threads, and I’m sure there is a mature debate in there somewhere, but stuff like that is a bit cringeworthy. 

 Tonsilitis  Nov 25 2011, 05:09 PM

Post #793

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 4,916
Joined: 13-July 05
From: Wemyss Bay
Member No.: 63

QUOTE(Alibi @ Nov 25 2011, 04:02 PM) 

Is it correct that this court case about the 79 stars event is being dropped by the Trust because the legal costs are in fact massive? How can that be when there have been assurances that the Trust’s exposure would be a few hundred pounds as worst? Also, where does that leave the individual who was being sued? Does that mean he will have a possibly undeserved stigma against his name for all time? That seems a bit unfair to me. I don’t know the guy myself but if I were in his position I’d be keen to have the chance to clear my name.
No it is not correct! It is being dropped for legal reasons that make it impossible to carry on and, in fact would never have proceeded had proper disclosure been made to us and to a third party before the case got under way. Had the law been complied with neither the trust nor the defendant would have incurred any court related costs and that the law was not complied with is down to the defendant. 

You have to be in possession of all the facts to make your mind up about what is fair but my understanding is that the whole case has been funded by a third party and has not cost the defendant a bean! – if the Dr who never tells lies is to be believed!

 cmdc  Nov 25 2011, 05:39 PM

Post #797

GMFC Supporter

Group: Members
Posts: 2,101
Joined: 3-December 06
From: Greenock
Member No.: 2,108

QUOTE(Alibi @ Nov 25 2011, 04:02 PM) 

Is it correct that this court case about the 79 stars event is being dropped by the Trust because the legal costs are in fact massive?

No!

Not really for a ‘semi-public forum’ Mr. Feeney?

HERE IS (COMPLETELY UNEDITED) AN ENTIRELY UNSOLICITED MESSAGE SENT BY  YOUR PREDECESSOR NICK ROBINSON ON 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 – TO CHRIS SILVER A NON-TRUST MEMBER. A SECOND MESSAGE TO ANOTHER NON- MEMBER WILL BE PUBLISHED HERE SOON!

 ‘I will be happy to meet you and talk through the whole thing face to face including how my figures compare with Jim’s and the reasons for differences but you are presumably on the doctors circulation list because your response repeats some of the myths and misconceptions he repeatedly propagates.  I know you are a decent guy because I met you on tour with Morton – was it at the washed out game at Lancaster? …..
Anyway and briefly:
1)  I admit that the organisation was a mess but I played no part in the trial by message board in the immediate aftermath, nor did any of the current board.
2)  Ernie Newall got himself banned from the message board.  No one else was responsible but in my opinion, the banning was fully merited and his despicable actings since just prove the point.  The man, in my opinion, is a complete creep, full of his own importance and prepared to use people for his own ends, just as he has used Jim Gallacher.
3)  Maybe some people did go over the top in the heat of the moment after the event and I fully agree they were stupid to do so, but whether what they said was untrue is yet to be proved.  Most of what Ernie says has an element of truth but it has been twisted in such a way as to turn the truth into lies.
4)  I had nothing whatever to do with getting people banned from the Morton message board.  Again they managed that themselves.  People were repeatedly warned not to discuss the Stars night and if they chose to violate that rule, whose fault is that?
5)  You refer to me as being independent.  I was not independent in that I investigated the matter on behalf of the trust and represent the trust all matters related to the court case. I am a trust director! That does not mean that I have fiddled anything as I have put together figures which can stand scrutiny in court.  For that reason, I have given Jim the benefit of the doubt throughout my report and many of the figures were supplied either by him or Ernie Newall.  Interestingly, all the legal actions by the defence so far have been about getting the case dismissed on technicalities.  That might be because, so far, no strong evidence has been put forward to demonstrate why my figures are wrong.  Just bluster from Ernie and “it wisnae me it was him” allegations with little foundation except as mentioned below.
6) You refer to another Newall myth about why was one of the suspects on the investigation committee.  Sean Donnelly was the only person who was available for me to consult and had done some work putting figures together.  I therefore used his knowledge of the event as a starting point but a starting point only.  He was involved in one meeting with me about the financial outcome of the night and then I proceeded to compute the numbers independently and none of what I have arrived at is the same as any of Sean’s figures.
7) Sean Donnelly has an apparent shortfall of which is less than it would be economic to pursue in court (about a fifth of what we started pursuing JG for) and further, the way his deficit arises is less certain in terms of proof.  Ernie has attributed losses to him simply on a guesswork basis with no hard evidence.

Chris, I don’t sit in judgement of anyone – the court will decide that.  All that you say about how the event was run is true in that it was shockingly run from a financial perspective, beginning to end.  I have tried to clean up the mess.  Now, what I have honestly put together regardless of anything Dr Newall may say, brought out that Jim Gallacher owed us nearly £3,000.  Some people thought we should just write that off.  Others, including me thought we had a duty to pursue it. You can’t please all of the people all of the time!  I wonder if we had not, when Jim might have paid us the couple of hundred pounds his figures said he owed or return the £400+ stock he had either sat on or drunk in the intervening 16 months?
Finally, there is another development in the last few days which will I believe bring things to a speedy end so far as the trust is concerned and graphically illustrate the deceit and forked tongues that have been going on in this whole matter.

If you would like to discuss the matter face to face, PM me.
Nick  

…LATER:

 

Chris,

A couple of things I think you are getting wrong here!

Regarding Sean Donnelly’s involvement in my investigation, I will repeat for clarity, I only used Sean’s input to establish some basic issues about what were the sources of income on the night, costs, etc. Once I knew those, I set about working them out for myself. The main income sources were as follows:

Bar Takings:

Most of the booze was supplied on a sale or return basis from Wm Morton & Co. I got their invoices and credit note and from those I worked out to the last can of coke what we paid for. The booze prices on the night were known so by applying them to the booze I knew we had paid for, I could work out a “gross” figure for bar takings. From that has to be deducted booze consumed by free drinkers e.g. the top table and booze given away as gratuities. Re gratuities, I have used figures supplied by Jim via Ernie Newall unchanged by me even though people I have asked who were supposed to have had free drink denied getting any. For free drinkers on the night, Jim wants us to allow £30 a head. At the prices on the night that’s a full bottle of spirits plus a couple of beers or three and half bottles of wine or 15 beers or some combination thereof. There would have been a queue of ambulances if that was true and I have taken the average suggested by other organisations who have run “free” drink nights.

In short, the above has no input from Sean Donnelly at all.

Ticket sales:

My ticket sales figures for Gallacher are mostly derived from his own schedules plus a few I have added where I have evidence he got the money. The difference between his figures and mine is 5 tickets

There are twelve tickets that I cannot say who got the money. It could have been Jim or Sean or they might not have even been paid for at all. I have not attributed them to anyone but Ernie with no evidence at all that I am aware of says they must have been paid to Sean. He also said Sean was responsible for Dougie Rae’s table on the same basis. That turned out to have been not paid and we collected a cheque from the club for it earlier this year!

Again – no input from Sean other than supplying his own and Gallachers spreadsheets sent to Sean re ticket sales.

Tombola money:

Jim says he got around £80 from the tombola money to help pay speakers. Stuart Duncan says that he got £600 and Sean Donnelly saw him given money although he can’t speak to the quantum. Now that’s a “my word against yours” statement but even if Jim did only get £80 he failed to include even that in his accounts given to us by his solicitor and has come up with several different versions.

I could go on but hopefully you are getting the drift. There is no conflict of interest in a trust director investigating the matter and whilst I accept that SD was also in the frame, the only part he played in my investigation was to help me understand the mechanics of the event. Once I had that, my information re Jim’s liability was mostly derived from third party information sources or Jim himself.

As for the police investigation, I would read nothing into that because the local bobbies have neither the manpower nor the expertise to undertake the sort of financial investigation required to establish what went on. They have to hire that in and they are not going to do so for a small beer case like this. I have dealt with prosecuting authorities too many times in my professional career not to know that to be true.

The open discussion of the case on the football message board and the accusations and counter accusations which flew around at the time were wrong. I fully agree but as I said, I had no part in that and as far as I can see Stuart Duncan was only guilty of trying to protect the reputation of the trust. There’s another discussion to be had about whether he did that wisely but that’s what he did.

When I took up the matter, I did so on behalf of the trust generally and did not act under the instructions of anyone on the trust board in terms of who or what to investigate nor did they in any way influence my conclusions.

So regarding the figures, I came up with numbers that said Jim owed us nearly £3,000. Do you think the trust should just have written that off? The equivalent figure for Sean Donnelly was just over £500 and that is too low to sue for and his position is that he owes nothing and will not pay it. What do you think we should do now?

I think you have hit one nail on the head. My belief is that Ernie’s involvement stems back to his being “insulted” on the message board and he has been after revenge ever since. You say it was Sean Donnelly who made the allegations about him but I have a recollection it might have been someone else. No matter, Ernie is out to kill the trust. He openly talks about trying to bring the trust to its knees on his blog. Jim Gallacher is just his pawn in all of this and the case would have been resolved a long time ago and far more cheaply for both sides but for Newall’s interventions.

A game changing matter has arisen in the last week or so and if what I now think is true is indeed the case, it will expose fully just who has been double dealing and deceitful and I will make sure it does get that exposure. Ernie Newall is a manipulator of people and in my opinion he has used Jim Gallacher in a shameful way.

I also think that you cannot justify the things Newall has said about people on his blog. The man is a creep of the first order and some of the things he has posted on his blog are straight from the sewer. Hopefully will get his come uppance one of these days.

As I have said Chris, I would be happy to discuss the matter face to face with you if it would help your understanding but please be aware, there is another side to this story other than the Newall version of events! Likewise, you might have spoken to Jim Gallacher, but you did not speak to me to give that some balance!’

 

THE MEMBERSHIP AWAITS A DATE FOR THE LEGALLY BINDING S.G.M. MR. CHAIRMAN!


IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME!

REPUBLISHED UNEDITED – PARTICULARLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ‘NEW’ TRUST COMMITTEE (POST TRUST DEED SCAM).

Thursday, 26 April 2012

‘IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME’ (THE STORY OF ROBINSON’S VAULTING AMBITION)

On June 24th 2010 the Committee of the Greenock Morton Supporters’ Society Ltd. held a ‘watershed’ meeting which was designed to secure the future of the Trust. 
At what was a ‘first’ for the youthful new committee members, Paul Gill and Nick Robinson had promised to challenge the ‘Old Brigade’ over its handling of the ‘Stars of ’79’ fiasco, BUT THEY DID NOT. 
That was because those two had known full well in advance what the outcome would be! 
The Trust committee’s lawyers had already given the nod to legal action, Robinson and Chairman Stuart Duncan had agreed on the way ahead, and between the two of them, ably abetted by Paul Gill, essential figures had been ‘conned’ from Jim Gallacher. Those figures would be used to manufacture a deficit for the Stars event.  Duncan had already convinced Robinson of his ‘open and shut’ case which, allied to the latter’s manipulations, they imagined would guarantee success in the planned Small Claims action. That was put to the new committee members who accepted it unquestioningly.
All that remained was to deal with the formal request from Trust member Mortonjag – a request which Paul Gill had GUARANTEED the Chairman would answer!
Those new committee members had VERY CLEARLY AND POINTEDLY been asked to study in depth the thirty four emails exchanged between Mr. Gallacher and  the ‘Old Brigade’ before the latter involved the police. They were VERY CLEARLY AND POINTEDLY asked to defer any decision until that had been done, and Mortonjag had offered to furnish copies if required.  Some of those emails were described by Mr. Gallacher’s solicitor as ‘nothing short of blackmail and attempted extortion’.
Secondly, the new committee members were asked VERY CLEARLY AND POINTEDLY to address an apparent deficit of some £1500 in Sean Donnelly’s ticket income.
THEY DID NOT EXAMINE THOSE EMAILS. THEY DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ‘OLD BRIGADE’ ON DONNELLY’S DEFICIT. THEY  SIMPLY ACCEPTED WHAT THEY WERE TOLD WAS TO HAPPEN, immediately after which Mr. Robinson took it upon himself to silence Mortonjag. 
With only a few basic ‘Trust’ figures which Robinson had promised to examine INDEPENDENTLY, and without asolitary shred of hard documentary evidence – merely Stuart Duncan’s hitherto unproven allegations, he sent to Mortonjag an email which included: 
On Behalf Of nickrobinson@practiser.co.uk

Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:19 PM
Ernie,

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. 
Nick Robinson CA

Board Member

Practiser Business Recovery and Insolvency Services www.practiser.co.uk
No mention there of the thirty four emails, and not a whisper about Donnelly’s missing £1,500!
Protecting the ‘Trust’s reputation’ seemed to be the only thought in Robinson’s mind, and within hours he ‘phoned Mortonjag advising him to ‘get out’, and asserting that he had ‘backed the wrong horse’!

In response to their palpably muted subservience to Duncan, Robinson and the ‘Old Brigade’, Mortonjag (slightly ‘tongue in cheek’) described the ‘newbies’ as ‘bawbags’. That provoked an angry reaction from some.
In particular, Mortonjag’s erstwhile ‘friend’ the devious Mancunian carpetbagger Paul Gill stated in one of his lessvindictive postings :

……but in stark contrast to Gill’s ‘concrete parachute’ attempts to ‘relaunch’ the Trust, the truth had in fact been very well hidden!

 Mr. Gill’s headstrong determination to replace Stuart Duncan as Trust Chairman met with even less success than his ill fated ‘relaunch’. That endeavour was to demand a level of deceit and deviousness to which even Paul could not hope to aspire!

Meanwhile, another ‘newbie motormouth’ who had previously boasted of seeing ‘THE email’ before announcing to an unknown taxi driver immediately after that meeting that ‘they were pursuing (Mr. Gallacher) for over £5,000’ – posted the following in response to ‘TiTon’. (‘TiTon’ had no connection whatsoever with Ernie or ‘Newt’!):

The ‘majority of the board’ referred to the new members who had indeed been uninvolved in the event, but THEY HAD NOT (as he claimed) ‘SEEN ALL EVIDENCE’ relating thereto before ‘deciding what course of action to pursue.’ In truth they had meekly done what they were told to do! 

In stark contrast to Gillan junior’s arrant stupidity, and despite Robinson’s veto, Chris McCorkindale had the decency to write to Mortonjag:

From: McCorkindale, Chris [mailto:Chris.McCorkindale@gcu.ac.uk]
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 11:41 AM
To: mairidalglish
Subject: GMST

Hello Ernie,

I thought it might be worth writing to you, on the back of your most recent blog article, entitled ‘Bawbags!’.

I am a bit concerned that you have asked us to look at all of the available evidence, with an open mind, and then react in this way when we do just that,and find that there is proper cause for concern.  For the record, I have looked at all of the available information: information supplied by the Trust Board, information supplied to the Trust Board by Jim Gallagher, and information supplied to us by yourself. On the basis of ALL of that information, I am satisfied that there is sufficient cause for concern to continue, for now, on the current course….

Many thanks,

Chris

All well and good Chris, but you mentioned only ‘available evidence’ while body swerving the specific request to examine thirty four emails (and eight text transcripts) which Mortonjag had offered to provide, and yet again you made no mention of Mr. Donnelly’s deficit! 

It is now overwhelmingly obvious that all that mattered at that meeting was that the ‘Old Brigade’ should be allowed to continue its pursuit of Jim Gallacher, in which respect it is also abundantly clear that Messrs. Gill and Robinson (who both had designs on the Chairman’s post) were in cahoots with that ‘Old Brigade’ from the outset.

What DID the ‘newbies’ contribute to that fateful meeting on 24th June 2010? 

Mortonjag recently obtained unsolicited information from a Trust ‘insider’ who claims that NO attempt was made to examine those ‘stitch up’ emails – something which merely confirmed what Mortonjag had known all along.

Given that the self termed ‘new Trust’ is desperate to ‘move on’, (and in a genuine attempt to help Chris McCorkindale and his young colleagues as distinct from the Chairman), Mortonjag recently asked the Secretary to confirm that the ‘newbies’ were ‘gulled’ by Messrs. Duncan, Gill, and Robinson.  

They were after all, mere greenhorns at the time – relative youngsters who didn’t even know each other properly. They could hardly have been expected to question the authority of the establishment, let alone Nick Robinson’s insufferable arrogance.

Mortonjag sent the following:

From: Ernie Newall 

To: McCorkindale Chris
Sent: Saturday, 14 April 2012, 6:32
Subject: Are you able to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ Chris.

Hi Chris,

I’m trying to keep my blog less confrontational, and honestly hoping folk will make their own minds up about things over the next couple of years, but one thing is really eating into me….

….I always believed you were trying to do things properly….

….One thing which I considered crucial at the time (in many ways more so than Sean’s deficit) was the entire body of emails which went to and fro between Jim Gallacher and the (then) committee.

We cannot turn the clock back, but I have never believed that the new committee members were given the opportunity to study in detail those emails.

Were you Chris?

Ernie.

After requesting a week’s grace (as he had more pressing matters to deal with), Chris announced that he was ‘a little reluctant’ to go into the matter, but Mortonjag persevered:

From: Ernie Newall 

To: “McCorkindale, Chris”
Sent: Tuesday, 24 April 2012, 15:24
Subject: Re: Are you able to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ Chris.

I fully intended to publish the answer on my blog Chris….

….I merely wanted confirmation that you had been ‘gulled’ by the ‘old brigade’ from whom you are trying to distance yourselves. I’ve already had the truth verbally from one of your colleagues!…
….What am I supposed to say now Chris?…

Ernie.

…but after further emails Chris refused to be drawn. The Trust Secretary was unwilling to provide a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer.

That leads Mortonjag to conclude that the ‘New’ Trust committee members are NOT prepared to dissociate themselves from that apparently unanimous vote on 24th June 2010. 
THERE IS, THEREFORE, NO ‘NEW TRUST’, nor indeed can there ever be a ‘New Trust’ until the Stars of ’79 issue is finally ‘put to bed’. That hard fact cannot be hidden by a hundred successful ‘fans’ games. 
The perception of Morton fans as a body (a fairly canny bunch) is now that Chris McCorkindale and his colleagues are no more than mouthpieces for Chairman Nick Robinson, who  until his purposes were achieved  remained ‘as thick as thieves’ with the very ‘Old Brigade’ whose actions he is now happy to decry. That is the measure of the current Trust Chairman’s  integrity.
Mortonjag is of the view that with Mr. Robinson at the helm the Trust will simply stagnate further and can NEVER become part of a larger fans’ initiative. ‘Fans uniting’ has NOT failed because of Chris McCorkindale and the other youngsters.
The Stars of ’79 business may still be over two years from court, but the truth will be exposed! That is an absolute promise.
It is only a matter of time.