dunning1874

That second goal was exquisite. The type of goal that never gets into a goal of the season competition because the finish isn't that difficult, but is better than most that do. That is an absolutely terrific team goal from every player involved right from the point that Gillespie wins it, but especially Delaney. It's not an easy pass for Garrity to play it into Moffat's path while spinning himself but he puts it ahead of him, Moffat has a few options for what to do but takes the right one, Delaney times his run perfectly and delivers a great cross while O'Halloran is in exactly the right place, also a great run from him. Lovely goal.

All of them played well, but thought Moffat, O'Halloran, Owens and Delaney particularly were terrific. Playing that well that early under Murray is hugely encouraging. Fully deserved to win that and should have been by two goals. The lack of subs/the subs that were made were a bit of a concern, Brophy clearly couldn't run about 20 minutes before MacPherson came on and the obvious change when it finally happened was someone on for Brophy with Moffat going up front to press. With Moffat off instead we got worse as a defensive unit and it should never have got as nervy as it did, but no harm done ultimately and 99% of what we saw today is extremely positive.

We've... actually been good here? Game should be out of sight though, Brophy's miss is going to get more attention than his goal if we end up dropping points here.

I don't usually get caught up in the January deadline because it's the February deadline that really matters for Championship clubs, but this season is different because we're weaker than we were at the start of the window and have games with all three of our relegation rivals before the end of February. We need another centre forward now to give us the best chance for several must-win games including tomorrow, and Murray was clearly hoping to have something done this week.

I'd be surprised if anyone at Morton is earning even a third of Shaw's wage. Hamilton are going to have to blink and accept not having all of it covered, but there'll surely be higher bidders than us.

They signed him permanently in the summer to be second choice. Then when Stryjek got injured it only took them two games with Beach in goal to decide to bring Oluwayemi in on an emergency loan nstead. Beach being included in the rumour is what makes me think the whole thing is made up. Kilmarnock have brought Roos in to replace Oluwayemi with Stryjek still not fit. They still need Beach as second choice until Stryjek is back and aren't going to send him elsewhere to sit on the bench, while if Wolves were going to recall Storer to send him somewhere else on loan they'd have done it already rather than waiting until now.

No judgement on Molotnikov as a player, but unless he can start at centre forward it's not a signing we should be making. The last thing this squad needs is another attacking midfielder/winger. We already have Garrity, Moffat, O'Halloran, Shaw, Lyall, Crawford and McKay who can cover one or both of those positions. It's the area of the park we should be shedding players from in order to strengthen other positions, not adding more.

If we got Todorov and one other I'd be fine with that, but either way we can't end up with only one.

While Brophy hasn't been great, our next in line options up front are Moffat, Garrity and O'Halloran. If we need to move someone else on to bring in a replacement for Adeloye then there's absolutely no sense in it being Brophy. We've got five wingers, seven central midfielders and one striker, moving the only natural centre forward at the club on in order to sign a striker and still be stuck with only one would be stupid. You do wonder if getting out of the only 2 year deal for a senior player would be a factor for the club, but then that makes it less likely he goes without a payoff in which case we're not even reinvesting his full wage into the team, whereas with players with 6 months left (Shaw) you could see another club (Raith) just taking over their contract.

Murray on Connolly leaving: https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/25791536.greenock-morton-goalkeeping-coach-jon-connelly-departs/ “With that one, it's just about also cutting our cloth accordingly and seeing what's best financially for the club” I'm taking from that that Connolly was well paid for a goalkeeping coach and we'll be replacing him with a cheaper one? You have to have a qualified goalkeeping coach, quite apart from how tinpot it would be not to it's a requirement for a bronze licence, so unless we want a points deduction then he needs replaced.

Right, this is an actual argument unlike LargsTON making up things that aren't true, but can you elaborate? What does having the numbers for it to work mean? Does it amount to 'our fanbase isn't big enough to raise enough money' or is it about having enough expertise in the support? I think both are genuine issues with fan ownership but I don't see them as guaranteeing it to fail. There's always the issue that if you have some unforeseen bit of capital expenditure - like the damage to the roof for example - a private owner who has enough wealth could dip into their pocket and cover it if they choose to whereas that's obviously harder to do in the case of fan ownership, particularly if the money raised by the fans is already flowing entirely into the club's budget like ours rather than being saved up for a rainy day. That's one challenge, however I don't see it as fatal and the private owner model has its own downside, both in that scenario and in budgeting in general. As we saw ourselves for 20 years, the private owner proclaiming their own benevolence in "putting money in" is often just writing themselves an IOU. At least when a fan owned club has to move money around to cover an unforeseen cost it doesn't result in debt: that potentially having an impact on the budget in other areas doesn't make it a worse thing than running at a 300K loss every year and putting a millstone of several million pounds of debt around the club's neck. Regardless of whether the club if fan owned, privately owned or a 50+1 close combination of the two, I want them to be sustainable and live within their means rather than going back to where we were in piling up a mountain of debt and just assuming it'll be fine. That the club started breaking even while improving on the park was a massive achievement of fan ownership and should be hugely celebrated (although we're still to see accounts for last season and this one to know whether that's another thing Laird has damaged). As it is, MCT put over 100K into the club each season and Dalrada put something in that is presumably more than the actual value of shirt and stadium sponsorship. That is a combination of the club owner and a private party topping up the budget over and above the every day income every club has from season tickets, matchdays, merchandise etc, without the debt associated with a private owner doing it the way the Raes did. Sure, it'd be better if that MCT income was coming from 2000 members rather than 1000 and we might have more money in the budget for being privately owned if that owner was willing to bankroll spending, but we'd be writing the club's death sentence if that was just going to be piled onto the club's books in soft loans. Either way the actual footballing income is the same due to the size of the support, so if you want a sustainable football club I don't see how the private owner is necessarily going to be better regardless of the size of the support.

This isn't having a difference of opinion, you are just factually incorrect. The support hasn't dwindled. Last season was our highest average attendance since 16/17. Numbers through the turnstiles have broadly stayed steady with where they were for the last 15 years. There is no decline. It hasn't happened, you made this up. You say we're going nowhere on the park and the downward cycle will inevitably continue, but we've been better on the park under fan ownership than we were under private ownership. That's a fact. Even if you charitably only start it from the 07/08 First Division and discount the several years of failing to get out of the third tier before that, our average league position over those 14 years under the Raes was 6.9 in the second tier, so between 6th & 7th but closer to 7th. In four seasons of fan ownership, it's been 5.75, so between 5th & 6th but closer to 6th. We have factually been better. You've decided a decline on the park must happen under fan ownership because you have a dogmatic position that fan ownership is always bad at every club in the world, and so decided it must be true about Morton when the opposite is actually the case. You made it up. It's entirely possible that some of that better performance on the park was down to luck with a manager overachieving and we'll go backwards without Imrie, get relegated and the attendances will go downhill as a result, but if it's all down to Imrie you'd then have to acknowledge that was a board under fan ownership doing something the Raes rarely did and getting a managerial appointment right. We'd also regularly found ourselves in relegation battles before fan ownership, having the most embarrassing season in the club's history in 13/14 and finishing 9th in the last season of private ownership, with people making the exact same point you are now that the owners had us in a cycle of decline that we couldn't escape without a change of ownership. People are welcome to advocate any ownership model they like, I'm not dogmatically attached to any model and see positives and negatives with all of them, unlike you who has a blanket position that fan ownership is a guaranteed failure so think you can get away with inventing reasons why it's bad rather than making a serious attempt to convince people. People will continue to object to your posts on fan ownership for as long as you fail to make an actual argument about why it's a bad thing and resort to making shit up instead.

No, it isn't apparent to anyone, because it's something you've made up and have never once attempted to explain why it's the case. You've said it with no attempt to justify it, so it must be true and the rest of us are all idiots for not accepting it without question. The club have been unacceptably incompetent over the last couple of years, with an obvious deterioration through Laird's time as Chairman. The club were also unacceptably incompetent for 20 years of private ownership before that. The model of ownership isn't what matters, having competent people in the boardroom is and you can have a shambolic club or a well-run club regardless of the ownership model.

Queen's Park taking a pumping is good news, but Ross County getting a late winner at Airdrie is a nightmare; draw there was ideal. We need to win next week.

Arbroath statement on the crowd trouble.