vikingTON

Denied. Do we have any fucking information yet from GMFC regarding the assistant manager position, which may/may not have been vacated 7 weeks' ago by my back of a fag packet calculation?

I couldn't really give a toss about some completely token compensation. But this mewling, off the record take from an nameless 'Morton spokesperson'? "It is another example of why we must ensure we are not in the same situation again in the future." We? You (collectively) were entirely responsible for creating that situation, and waited with supine indifference until the last possible moment to spring a fait accompli on the owners of the club.

Dunfermline Athletic fans are braying morons. There's a reason why Jim fucking Leishman is considered a club legend, and also a reason why they have repeatedly lolloped into administration to about £20 million in total. They also only remained at this level due to Hamilton's points deduction. This is also the same fanbase that as @Toby may confirm, viewed swapping Ross Forbes for Andy Barrowman in January 2015 as yet another stunning transfer 'swoop' too. Literally every single thing they think about football is proven immediately wrong. You should reconsider.

Every single one of those double-barreled ringers at Dunfermline last season were stinking.

Centre back is the obvious and potentially difficult gap to fill in the squad (needing at least two good signings there) so it's encouraging to see us target that as the priority.

Better news about the St Mirren game being patched.

No, go and search the MCT thread where this was discussed. Then come back to state what parts of the update you disagree with.

Well no, there's quite clearly a yawning gulf between each one of your ridiculous false binary statements. Let's start with: 1) GMFC may have insurance coverage, but the sum paid by the insurers is not set and/or is not necessarily equal (higher or lower) to the costings provided, in relation to your ridiculous false binary 2). Instead of wasting bandwidth, perhaps you can explain what specific parts of the stadium director's explanation of this a fortnight ago you consider to be either unacceptable or false.

Gillespie and Crawford re-signing entirely fills our 'Scottish football veteran' quota in the middle area of the park. We should be prioritising a replacement (ideally an upgrade) on Lyall - goals, assists and effective in possession.

Lots of storm damage happened several months ago and hasn't been fixed yet. Your argument that GMFC should just decide what to do and who cares what the insurance provider says is unsound, not least when the same organisation has just had its FIFA correspondence being autofiled in the bin for a year.

A house along the street from me still has part of its roof missing from January too - it's as if you don't understand how insurance companies work. There's also no reason to have a tantrum about the Cowshed not being open for such box office ties like Stenhousemuir and *insert permadiddy here*, with crowds of about 1500 at a push.

You are aware how the highlighted part contradicts the pearl-clutching opening claim? If the conduct was so heinous then the 'legal dispute' would be non-existent. Like so many things that slither out from GMFC, the commonly held story simply does not stack up. As for the second part, while I was never a natural cheerleader for Millen, the only person in the room at Cappielow who is even remotely competent to make that judgement is Imrie, D. There is no other person in the building with relevant knowledge - and at no point has he (or indeed the players who have left) expressed anything other than complete support for Millen.

Some of these are viable, but a lot of them are not really open goals. Finding volunteers to traipse around the Oak Mall or similar is not easy and the likely return on that sacrifice of time is unclear. MCT (and the club by extension) are not actually charity cases - if a sustained drive for engagement is warranted, then they need to be professional (i.e. pay) to do so. The last proposal smacks of desperate panhandling IMO and should not be considered. There are few more annoying things in the first world than unsolicited phone calls from a company or organisation you have consciously stopped using (see 'Beer52' and other heavy subscription models).

A 1 second check to send proposals to the relevant address and organisation would work better. Did you send it on to the correct party in the end?