TopCat

Agree with this - we need outside investment, better staff and a more aggressive commercial approach. The consortium could provide that. If the ownership of Cappielow is taken off the table, I'll probably vote for the deal. Otherwise, we shouldn't even be considering handing over the keys unless a prospective investor is willing to commit significant sums to upgrade it.

The Easdales do own the industrial estate but this is just paranoia. Why would anyone enter into a 1/10th share of a consortium to prop up a loss making club as a cunning plan to deliver a speculative housing development in the most deprived area of Scotland? Not to mention the fact such a plan would face bitter local opposition and doesn't align with any of Inverclyde's published development plans.

And 3 of the 4 clubs are roughly back where they started. Gretna were never a serious club, Rangers were never likely to disappear altogether and Clydebank were circling the drain for a long time before going under. The fact that these clubs are new entities upsets folk but I'm sure 99%+ of their match going fans care not a jot. My point isnt that administration is a good option (it's not). All avenues out of our current predicament carry a lot of risk, but I think treating administration (or liquidation/newco) as something that couldn't be dealt with is a bit daft. Losing Cappielow to a nutter chairman/investor at some point down the line is a far more likely scenario than us ever finding the £5/6m+ required to build a new stadium.

Dundee x2, Livi x2, Motherwell, Clydebank, Hearts, Morton, Dunfermline, Gretna, Inverness, Dumbarton, Airdrie, Rangers. Its only really been Clydebank who've come away from admin fundamentally damaged and limited compared to where they used to operate. Loss of a stadium is generally a bigger hit to absorb and our propco is a level of protection which shouldn't be given up lightly.

It sounds like the consortium have a fair bit of work to do between themselves prior to any period of due diligence. Given that they're mostly people who run businesses which still operate at the scale of a personal fiefdom, will they be able to collaborate effectively? How will they decide who gets/approves formal board roles? These roles would give certain members much more control than others, e.g. - approval of budgets - approval of staff hires - whether 3rd party finance is necessary or acceptable If you were e.g. a die-hard Morton fan member of the consortium (but not a GMFC board member) and you didn't agree with a 250k loan being provided by a fellow member's firm, what could you do about it?

Obviously Murray is an idiot and takes the lion's share of the blame for the rabble we've cobbled together. However, other similar-sized clubs have pulled away from us in recent years in terms of spending. Even the full Dalrada sponsorship didn't bridge that gap in the going rate for full time championship players.

The bold highlighted statement isn't accurate. Estrella revised and subsequently pulled their offer due to the club's deteriorating (Dalrada-driven) financial position so it isn't fair to compare that scenario with our current administration-threatened one and point fingers at supporters. The original offer may have been a decent option if we were on an even keel, but as you have implied in previous posts, both the MCT members and EFG appear to have been misled.

Re: point 1, are you suggesting that you're sitting on evidence that MCT directors wilfully misled an investor? I think its the police you need here, rather than a cryptic ITK forum post.

This consortium offer sounds worse with every new bit of detail. Why should we allow a scenario where completely anonymous people get to load debt onto the club's only (and completely irreplaceable) asset and expect MCT members to service that debt? It also absolutely reeks of the Easdale plate-spinning real estate business model: buy a mostly worthless asset, submit a speculative planning application to inflate its potential value to borrow against, buy another plate to spin, become a "billionaire".

Bringing in an experienced coach, even on a part-time basis, would probably help the first team but every penny should be a prisoner until we have a clear route out of our current financial mess. ETA - when folk were speculating on whether or not we had sufficient licenced coaches, I thought offering Jim Duffy a couple of days a week would be the obvious desperation move.

No chance. Football is a pantomime and Imrie should be treated like any other opposition manager. I hope we pump them and get a good laugh at his expense.

I've normally got some sympathy for emptied managers, especially those under significant financial constraints. Not this time. Murray is a miserable, whiny nuisance who has conducted himself really poorly, covering his arse in the press at every opportunity. We're well rid.

I'm more than happy to cheer on a battling but limited side as they succumb to relegation. That's not what's happening here and I've no interest in wasting more of my saturday afternoons on this shite. Murray out.

I understand the wishful thinking on investment but it always amazes me that some folk turn into fainting southern belles at the thought of big-time successful businessmen getting involved with the club. Bonar, the Raes and those before them had their fair share of personal success (and bootlickers defending their every move) but that didn't translate to success for Morton.

An additional £150k a year isn't a game-changer. It won't even guarantee full time championship status, based on other clubs' budgets at this level. 60% ownership, cappielow and a demand that MCT basically match their offer in perpetuity isn't something I'd consider voting for. Give me League 1 and gradual decline over this nonsense.