TopCat

I'm not claiming Imrie didnt rate him as a player, but we're presenting the club to prospective signings as a stepping stone to bigger things, so offering the same deal purely to squeeze a pittance in compensation out of Ross County also isn't a great look in that context, especially if Lyall had a big offer on the table and wanted to go. Offering a wage increase of e.g. £300/week (~£15k) as a genuine attempt to get Lyall to stay would've been a hell of a risk for the club to take given the financial/budget uncertainty at the time, self-inflicted or not.

I'm not normally one for defending the club, but there's a chance he was already one of our highest earners and Dougie wasn't convinced about offering more/the same. The fee (although important) would also be small beer to compensate us for a single season of development so I don't think this one is a completely clear cut bit of negligence.

The league cup group stage is the big target now. Get through that and secure a decent draw/have a run and we'll have the necessary January budget to challenge for 3rd/4th.

Suspect you're right, but the scrutiny has worked to some extent in that Dalrada's position has shifted a bit in recent weeks. For some reason there's a chunk of the support who seem desperate for MCT to fail so that we can have a rich guy owner to fantasise about. There's been embarrassing infighting and administrative blunders this season, but the current model has brought consistent sporting and financial success for a club of our size (so far at least), which is more than can be said for our last 2 titan-of-industry figureheads.

Even if we take this mealy-mouthed set of answers on John Laird's role and outside interests at face value, the situation is ludicrous. Surely the best step to improving governance, communication and accountability would be to have an actual Chairman, carrying out actual Chairman duties, e.g. negotiating major sponsorship deals.

Raking over personal disputes is all that this post amounts to. The relationships involved are clearly acrimonious all round, but this is just petty anonymous point scoring, given that Gordon has no ongoing role at the club.

When this deal is (presumably) accepted after a membership vote, what next? Is it Dalrada's general intention to sustain this level of funding into 26/27? What level of improvement in governance do they need to see? How does MCT know when to hit the panic button to start scrambling for new sponsorship? Will we know in January if Dalrada will pull out? Or will it be this time next year, under threat of giving up more seats on the board?

I agree, but we're in a really difficult position and they only need to offer enough to get the MCT vote over the line. I'm not against MCT selling up in exchange for serious investment in general terms, but Dalrada have a strong hand here and this situation makes me nervous.

I'll be surprised if the terms of the deal aren't: - a financial contibution similar to the existing deal in exchange for a majority shareholding - matched MCT contributions up to a cap over e.g. 2/3 years

Should we set up a sweep for what % of shares Dalrada are going to make an offer for? It'll need to be fairly high to protect their investment* properly as well as sort out the cash flow cliff-edge we'll be facing if they don't step in**. *investment and sponsorship are interchangeable terms depending on what suits Dalrada best. **running costs now much higher than year 1 MCT ownership due to Dalrada-driven backroom staff hires.

The level of acrimony on show suggests to me that the day to day effects of the recent Dalrada situation have already shifted from 'sponsorship-plus-help' to something closer to 'part-ownership-lite' this season. The new sponsorship offer might come with even more conditions if funding is to be increased as suggested. That's not necessarily a bad thing in the grand scheme of things, but it's a decision that's in the hands of MCT and and it's members, not Dalrada (despite having their massive financial carrot/stick available to negotiate with).

I'd assumed this line was included to give Dalrada/Morton/MCT a final chance to tweak the offer currently on the table before a summary is made public. This is probably the only acceptable outcome for me at this stage, given that there's been such big communication problems, plus all the other rumours and embarassing statements.

Theoretical scenario: you're in contract with an large organisation going through a big dip in performance and a restructuring. They're struggling to pay you on time (or at all), creating negative consequences and conflict in your organisation. Would you be wary of signing up to a new, bigger contract with them without seeing marked improvement? Especially if they were trying to publicly pressure you into signing in an arbitrary timeframe "in good faith"?

Completely agreed on all of this, but I'd add that it's now hard to see how any compromise deal can include the 3 people involved remaining in post. If their positions are only held going forward due to the influence of a 3rd party and not MCT, this would create the perception of (if not a potential/actual) conflict of interest. That perception would be damaging in and of itself.

Agreed on the need for communication, but the last thing we need is tit for tat rumours from warring factions being played out in public. There might be plenty of nonsense going on, but the best solution for the club doesn't necessarily make everyone happy. There's been plenty of sweetie rustling this season about late payments and backpedalling from Dalrada, plus folk with gripes about Laird, but that doesn't mean those stories hold any more or less weight than the stuff posted above.