TRVMP

IF we have an insolvency event, it's a 15 point deduction, then a 5 point deduction next season.

Only a small minority in the room have any objections, most people are applauding.

I reckon we're looking at our new owners. Grim times ahead.

I will say that Raj is correct about one thing: the way the club currently solicits the business community and sponsorship just isn't good enough. On everything else I just don't think he's proven himself trustworthy.

I'm grateful to Gordon Ritchie for that. It absolutely needed to be said that the supposed 'debt' for the stadium is actually an anti-embarrassment clause, which expires in a few years. Raj totally elided that fact. There's no way I can vote for this consortium bid. It's absolutely not good enough. Administration is preferable to this.

Correct, it's an arms race and it happens at all levels of football. All else being equal, if you don't have a benefactor you'll just get outbid for the same pool of players.

Borso's challenge on Murray was clumsy and late but it wasn't nearly as bad as Murray made it out to be. Borso also knew he'd done wrong and immediately tried to help Murray up. Good referring to book them both.

While administration and a points deduction are both still likely, it's maddening to think how many points we could have scraped over the past few weeks without Murray hanging around dragging down the squad. Well done to the management team and players for prevailing in this six-pointer.

Garrity's turnaround since Murray left is reminiscent of Muirhead's after McPherson's departure. Early days of course but he's actually been effective the last three games.

How good is Harrison btw

I asked for the evidence to be posted and it has been posted, and I thank Alasdair for posting it. To me, it shows that the extent of the Dalrada fiasco, and the Morton board's knowledge of it, was not shared with Estrella in its entirety until very late in the day - August. That's most of what was alleged, and that allegation is now seen as true. The rest of the allegation is that this was a deliberate, material withholding, a misleading. I don't think that has been proven. It could just as easily be naivete. A lot of people, myself included, were charmed by Brian Bonar such that we believed - mistakenly! - that he was a man of his word. This is NOT to exonerate anyone at all. This is NOT to say it was an excusable error. But it seems to be quite possible that, perhaps out of heads in the sane, they wanted to think the best case scenario would just work out in the world. Again, it is not to exonerate. I think the respective boards had two duties that they failed in: A) They had an affirmative duty to share the material financial circumstances of the club in line with the memorandum of understanding, and I don't think this was fully done. They had an affirmative duty to be even more transparent, down to the penny, about everything financial from the moment they went to Estrella looking for a loan. If you go cap in hand like that to a potential investor, that's the time you lose a lot of leverage. You just have to put your cards on the table at that point, otherwise you risk destroying trust. Between that and Estrella's own mystifying inability to speak clearly and fairly, that trust was destroyed. I am on record as disagreeing with the current incumbents' characterization of the Dalrada issue as one of cashflow rather than structure. If the club's cashflow depends on a sponsor that, effectively, does not exist, that is not a cashflow issue but a structural one. If I build my house on four pillars and one of them is made out of cotton wool, that isn't a brick issue. So even if the board(s) truly believed this, I don't think they could reasonably impute that belief onto Estrella, and therefore they should have shared it earlier than they did. To me, this evidence is fairly, but not entirely damning. It confirms much of what was alleged previously, but it falls short, to me at least. And I think in the cold light of day Estrella would agree that they weren't maliciously defrauded, because if you look at the "Revised offer Estrella" screenshot, the language that MCT want removed says the budget was too optimistic, not misleading, not dishonest, nothing like that. And, if I'm not mistaken, Estrella did agree to remove it from the IA, didn't they? This suggests to me that, while it absolutely would have precipitated a huge decrease in trust from Estrella towards MCT/GMFC/both, it actually wasn't the dispositive issue here. I think the evidence, then, doesn't indicate all of what Alasdair said it was. I think it's bad. I think it shows an irresponsible level of optimism from the people who put it together. But I don't regard this as the silver bullet that killed the deal. Alasdair himself admitted, after much obfuscation, the deal was active (albeit on life support) heading into the meeting. What killed the meeting was Alasdair's and Estrella's hubris. As understandable as their anger may be in the light of the failings illustrated by this evidence, they managed to take that failing of their counterparty and turn it into an overwhelming rejection of their own side by the MCT membership. That's on them, and they'll never take that responsibility, so for me that's a chapter closed that we'll just collectively have to live with. I don't regard it as a mass resignation issue for the Boards. I do regard it as a pretty severe failing and once that they should account for in a way they have yet to do so. We simply can't be having these optimistic projections when we already know the frailty of the situation, and we can't be - even if for benign reasons - withholding that information either.

It would only meet the criteria if I was now in possession of new info. I'm not. You guys have already made all these claims based on the materials you've seen. I've not seen the materials. You insist that I'm wilfully ignorant because I want to see them first. I have literally negative reason to take your word for it. Send me the evidence and I'll judge it on its merits. I'm not anonymous, I'm pseudonymous, plenty of people reading this known who I am. Dm me and I'll tell you, we can meet up in Greenock next time I'm over. Bring yer maw And all this stuff about phone calls and when "Estrella" saw the emails, it's just irrelevant. There are numerous people at Estrella. You're more than happy to individualize MCT directors when it suits your agenda but you can say now with confidence that you told "Estrella" on the phone so the email from "Estrella" was false (why would they mislead people into thinking they didn't know the contents of it by implying this?) You impute the worst possible motives onto everyone else while fannying about like Poundland Talleyrand yourself, spreading God knows what to whom and throwing around allegations without evidence. It's absolutely pathetic. Post the evidence.

Just post the material then.

I'm posting to you, you were speaking to a large audience in an important meeting. You know the difference. Your timeline of when the deal was and wasn't active isn't reliable for the reasons dunning point out: they don't match those published by Estrella. I think you bought into the Estrella thing despite their repeated failures at meeting their goals and you're blind to their 50%-ish role in this failing and I think that's because they made you feel important. If you were in possession of evidence that shows the MCT board willingly misled Estrella in contravention of their memorandum of understanding then the time to present that was at the meeting, then - if applicable - to the police. That you insist people agree with you and are bound to remove directors before you present it suggests to me that you're not as confident in your position as you pretend, same with Estrella shiteing out of legal action of their own. You can go back and look at the posts here from the night before the meeting, many people who were 'yes'es like me turned to not just 'nos' but 'hell nos' because of YOUR actions. You can say that's unfair because MCT lied, but you've still not presented any evidence of this. Every malicious intention you attribute to MCT, of deliberate lying, can be turned around to you. The Davie Moyes Jr. situation is a somewhat petty example. You said one thing, MCT said the other. By your own standards, one of you is guilty of lying. In the absence of evidence, I'm not just going to believe it's not you because you tell me it is. Why would I when you've displayed so far an almost fathomless level of arrogance and poor judgement?

You won't find me defending anyone who used spoiler tactics to privilege the consortium, regardless of who they are and what connection they have to MCT or don't have. The consortiums offer is inferior in every way to that of Estrella. This is perfectly consistent with what I said, which is that it was shut down within minutes at the meeting - as was correct.