dunning1874

Miller talking to the Tele: “I'm delighted, we worked on that all week. How we wanted to play, how we wanted to move and getting in behind them” That might seem a blatantly obvious statement - management team coach players on tactics at training to prepare for a game - but this is the big difference in the last couple of games. Both in and out of possession there is actually a plan for what players are supposed to be doing, where they're meant to be and how that's going to lead to creating chances. There was absolutely none of that under Murray, he'd clearly mentally checked out to such an extent that he simply wasn't bothering his arse to coach them or make a gameplan beyond "here's your formation, off you go". Now you can clearly see what the plan is and that the coaching is actually happening, it shows in how we attack and create chances, it shows in how we press as a unit and it shows in how we shut down any space in midfield in the second half yesterday. As part of a properly organised team, players who'd looked miles off it under Murray like Sandilands and Garrity are being given the platform to play really well and win us games. It's still very early days and bad results are going to come while the wins have come in two of the easier fixtures we'll have, but what a breath of fresh air to see a management team who are actually concerned with getting results and doing everything they can to help the players, rather than self-servingly throwing them under the bus in a wild attempt to protect their own reputation.

After saying at half-time how frantic and fast paced the game had been, it was really pleasing how we controlled that second half. Completely took the sting out the game and passed our way to the 2-0 win, would have made it a far more boring watch for a neutral but it was exactly the right thing to do and it's encouraging to see we're actually capable of doing that. Who could have guessed that getting rid of a dud manager could make a team better?

We've scored more in two and a half games under Miller & O'Halloran than we did in 12 under Murray. This has been so good. We're very vulnerable to conceding ourselves and giving up too much room in midfield, the game isn't won yet, but you couldn't really ask for better than this in attack. If it's the same game in the second half this could end up 5-5. Thought our penalty was a perfectly good tackle but we've also had the clearest shout turned down with the handball appeal. Two of the Queen's Park appeals were laughable but the trip while everyone was still laughing at their handball appeal did look like a foul to me.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm disputing that it's relevant to the characterisation of Estrella's decision to withdraw. Ultimately going into the AGM they did believe that via the statement they could convince members to vote for the deal, and so the deal was still alive. Instead members responded by postponing the vote, and so they withdrew. Had members not passed a resolution to postpone the vote they would not have withdrawn, in the hope that the vote opening would result in the deal being approved by members. That's an accurate representation of events regardless of what else Estrella were thinking in the days leading up to the AGM. I don't want to get too far into a semantic discussion here and stray away from the point but I think the use of the word "refute" here is pertinent. Yes, if you're using the dictionary definition of refute then neither MCT or GMFC have refuted Estrella's claims in the statement, as they have not presented evidence that factually proves Estrella's claims to be untrue; equally, Estrella have not refuted MCT & GMFC's claims that Estrella weren't telling the truth in the statement, because Estrella have also not presented any evidence to factually prove the points MCT/GMFC contested either. What MCT & GMFC board members did do was dispute a significant number of claims Estrella made in the statement. At the AGM they immediately denied several points, and specifically on the Dalrada arrears said that they had a paper trail proving that Estrella's version of events as presented in the statement was untrue. Ultimately both sides claimed to have evidence to support their version of events and neither has shared it with MCT members; only one party threatened legal action against the other that could feasibly scare the other away from sharing evidence, and that leads to obvious speculation about why they would want to do so. It's a fairly standard logical thread to follow that the party threatening legal action in that scenario don't want the evidence to see the light of the day because it disproves their claims and that's their motivation for a legal threat. Maybe that's not the case, I don't know, but in the absence of the evidence Occam's razor is all I've got. It is baffling to me to the point of incredulity that they would decide to go fully scorched earth with such an incendiary statement at the AGM in response to the wording of the email, and at no point in the 54 hours between the email being sent and the AGM see the email for themselves. So they find out on Saturday, via a phone call due to the person informing them having no access to emails at the time. Fair enough. At no point in the course of drafting the statement or at any other time in that 54 hours did they ask yourself or any other MCT member they were in contact with to forward the email they were responding to onto them so they could see the wording for themselves? They didn't immediately raise this breach of the NDA with the MCT board directly and ask to see the contents of the email? They only got it on the Tuesday once they'd decided, for the final time, to withdraw? It makes very little sense that they wouldn't they want to see it as a matter of urgency in order to compose their response. My point above about the Dalrada arrears and evidence takes us to the screenshot you've shared, and I've said all along that if any proof is presented that any or all MCT or GMFC board members lied to either the membership or Estrella then I'll call for their immediate resignations. Yes, this proves beyond any doubt that Estrella were on a call about the full size of the arrears as they stood on 10 August and had that figure confirmed to them in writing on 11 August. The comment in the Estrella statement at the AGM that they became aware of the full extent of the arrears on 10 August is therefore true. Is this the same thing as MCT, GMFC or both deliberately misleading them by having concealed the total arrears from them prior to that date? If that's because that figure for arrears had been the case for weeks or months and MCT and/or GMFC simply didn't disclose it, then yes, that's a lie and a resignation matter for the lot of them. If it's because the total arrears figure had changed recently prior to 10 August - from the club's update of 16 August they said Dalrada only paid £7K for July, and from the 4 September update they failed to make any payments for August, but without knowing what dates payments were contractually expected to be made we can't say if that was being sat on before taking it to Estrella or was brought to them reasonably quickly - then that's a consequence of changing information. If it's the latter that does of course still mean Estrella were justified in a last minute change to their investment because the financial picture became so much more severe, but that doesn't mean they were lied to or had information withheld, whereas the former does. I'm going off a combination of memory and the notes I tried to frantically take down through the course of the statement and rebuttals at the AGM which undoubtedly missed a lot so in the absence of a recording I may be mistaken, but when it came to rebuttals after the statement, the part the MCT board were taking issue with was Estrella saying they were unaware of any Dalrada arrears until July; they claimed this was untrue, that as part of the due diligence process Dalrada's arrears at that time were fully disclosed and this included financial statements which showed Dalrada's arrears, and they had the paper trail to prove this. I think Graham Barr also interjected at this point to say a full transcript of a call between the GMFC board and Dalrada about missed payments was shared with Estrella as well, but I didn't get a note of when he said that was, if he did at all. The messages above don't disprove that. They do prove that the situation was changing at the last minute and Estrella were therefore justified in making last minute changes (and personally I still thought £600K for 35% of the club was a huge sum of money anyway even though I had concerns about the extent of the veto power, so I didn't mind that reduction from £750K). They do not prove that Estrella were being lied to prior to this.

Even if every other word in this post is true, that statement is irrefutably factually correct (other than characterising it as a huff being an opinion). The statement was read, the members at the AGM passed a resolution to postpone the vote in the aftermath, and Estrella withdrew after the vote was postponed. These are objective facts. If they were doing the hokey cokey for several days before with withdrawing then deciding not to, whether they were justified in doing so or not, that does not change the reality they only publicly withdrew after the vote was postponed and not before. Their own statement on the matter explicitly said the vote not going ahead was the reason they withdrew: https://estrellafootball.group/news/estrella-football-group-withdraws-from-proposed-investment-in-greenock-morton-fc "As a direct result of the outcome of this week's members' meeting of Morton Club Together (MCT), Estrella Football Group is withdrawing from its proposed investment in Greenock Morton Football Club." "with this week's vote on the proposal not going ahead, Estrella unfortunately has no choice but to step back from the deal." If they have documentation which proves their claims to be true, why would they not share it? Proof that the MCT board were lying would unquestionably lead to widespread demands for a vote of no confidence in the directors proven to have lied, a vote those directors would lose in a landslide if they didn't immediately resign. This would then have opened the door for a new MCT board Estrella could trust to see the deal to completion - they wouldn't even have had to wait for new elections for this outcome, considering who was elected the same night. Instead they withdrew from the process without presenting evidence, and if Graham McLennan is to be believed, they threatened legal action over the the NDA being broken by MCT: a course of action which would likely scare MCT off from ever publishing any documentation about timelines themselves, knowing Estrella might respond with further legal threats. Do you see why that looks suspicious to people? Estrella's own statement of 11 September explicitly stated the following about that email: "An incomplete Investment Agreement was issued to MCT members without Estrella's knowledge or consent, contrary to the arrangements that had been agreed and in breach of the NDA governing the process. In addition, the proposal was communicated by MCT as giving Estrella "majority control over GMFC whilst being a minority shareholder". Estrella did not see these communications until 18 August." By Estrella's own version of events they didn't see this email until Tuesday 18 August, after the AGM on Monday 17 August. If what you're saying here is true about them threatening to withdraw on the Saturday 15 August and deciding to drafting the statement to be read at the AGM in response to that email, then Estrella lied in their statement of 11 September.

Someone on P&B has picked up that the author of the McLennan/McMaster statement in Microsoft Word is not, in fact, Graham McLennan or John McMaster.

Considering their conduct at the AGM and since I think everything points to us dodging a bullet in not having Estrella involved with the club, but it is absolutely wild to say this is a more serious offer than Estrella. It's considerably worse in every respect.

Everyone being united to kick the consortium dogshit out is the most important thing so reluctant to go to the same detail on the competing statements from different MCT board members, but broadly there's a Thomas Francis shaped flaw in the McLennan and McMaster statement. If the existing MCT board were so disorganised and incompetent that there was no communication with new directors joining the board amid total failures of governance, to the point that working with them is "untenable" and they felt they had no choice but to first ask for their resignations then try to start a coup when that offer was refused, why is another new board member who was elected at the same time as McLennan & McMaster putting his name to a statement alongside those existing board members? A statement that not only disputes McLennan & McMaster's characterisation of events but explicitly raises concerns about "Graham McLennan's behaviour"? The examples they give of issues they've seen are very light on specifics as well, and where there is something specific it's extremely flimsy. The Estrella deal not going to a vote was the choice of members at the AGM to vote for postponement (a resolution that Graham McLennan & John McMaster didn't vote against) then Estrella taking the huff and doing a runner in response. Take that up with your pals in Estrella whose own statement at the AGM blew it up. Also as an aside, once again in this statement legal action by Estrella is mentioned; are we supposed to be sad that people who were seriously considering legal action against us didn't gain a stake in the club? The offer of £120K-150K brought by Gordon Ritchie has already been proven to be completely unserious nonsense which couldn't be taken to the membership, by Gordon Ritchie's own public telling of events. Also trying not to be too judgemental, we've seen MCT emails go out with errors as well, but there are so many grammatical issues in their statement that I can't even figure out what they're trying to say in some places. The justification for the underhanded whatsapp message (a justification given after claiming they have no idea why members have submitted votes of no confidence in them) is totally muddled. As for the "we volunteered for this vote, will anyone else?!" attempt to muddy the waters, nice try. John McMaster can make that claim to martyrdom if he likes as he's done it without the requests for a VONC in him meeting the 10% threshold, but Graham McLennan would be facing this vote regardless of whether he wanted to because the 10% threshold was met. It's happening because the members demanded it whether he liked it or not, not because of his decency in putting himself forward for it.

So, the consortium open with: "We would like to make it absolutely clear that our involvement with Greenock Morton Football Club is not driven by any intention to take over the club or to purchase GMFC. We are not coming forward with an agenda, nor are we looking to take control of the club." This is complete nonsense. You are literally trying to purchase GMFC and take majority control of the club by asking for 60%. It is blatantly false to claim otherwise. "We appreciate that supporters and members of the board may naturally have questions about our intentions, and we believe it is important to be transparent from the outset." You've already failed to do that, we don't even know who four of you are! "We have not approached GMFC with demands or a list of conditions. We have not said that we want to buy the club, take it over or dictate its future direction." You are literally offering to buy 60% of the club! That is buying it, taking it over and having the power to dictate its future direction! "A 60% shareholding is our minimum requirement." So you claim to not have any demands or conditions, you claim to not be wanting control of the club, when you are in fact demanding majority control? Do you think everyone buttons up the back?! "What is the minimum MCT contribution required for the consortium's £150,000 commitment to continue, and how does this reconcile with the consortium's stated assumption of primary responsibility for future funding? The minimum required contribution is £12,500." So this confirms, MCT have to pay the exact same amount as the consortium at a minimum to dilute their shareholding and lose majority control of the club along with ownership of Cappielow as the consortium have to pay to gain all of the above, and when MCT payments inevitably drop below that level the funding from the consortium will immediately stop. This is absolutely outrageous, it's genuinely offensive to expect anyone to accept this disgrace. "We would want Cappielow to remain available as potential security should additional funding ever be required through a bank loan or a loan from one of the consortium members. In such circumstances, a standard security over the stadium could be considered. This is not to suggest that such borrowing will necessarily be required, but we believe the option should remain available as a standard means of financing a business." The GMFC board never being able to jeopardise the future of Cappielow in this fashion is exactly why it's been moved to a separate company to protect it. This can never be allowed to happen. Nice touch as well to float the idea of it being a consortium member who provides the loan secured against Cappielow. So the consortium can get majority control of the club, have a loan from one of that consortium secured against Cappielow, wind down funding themselves, oversee the club they control failing to make repayments on that loan, and oh look, now a consortium member owns Cappielow themselves! How convenient! "During the contracting phase we would agree a contractual structure that provides MCT confirmation that Cappielow would not be sold and only used for football." Doesn't stop you using it for security as a loan though that could make this invalid though? Or charging an extortionate rent once you've seized control of it if you can't go as far as demolishing it to grab the land? "4 of the consortium members have asked for their identities to be kept anonymous at this stage. This is in part due to the negative social media directed to some of the other consortium members. All members will be identified prior to the final vote." This is transparent bullshit. How could they have wanted to withhold their identities when the consortium was first announced due to negative social media attention towards other consortium members, when no one knew who the other members were then either? It's clearly total nonsense. Announcing the rest of their identities only after an initial due diligence vote is also not acceptable. It couldn't be more obvious that the point of this consortium is an asset grab and they couldn't care less about what's good for Morton. Letting them into the club would be a death sentence, this needs to be stopped on Monday.

Huge MCT update has just landed with the sign up for Monday's meeting, the responses from the consortium to questions put to them, confirmation that George Anderson has resigned while a vote of no confidence will be held in Graham McLennan & John McMaster, a statement from Graham McLennan and John McMaster and a statement from the rest of the MCT board. Going to take a lot of time to go through everything, but it's only taken two sentences from the consortium to reach a nonsensical and blatantly untrue claim.

Reminder of the prize money in this tournament now: Winners: £150,000 Runners-up: £100,000 Eliminated in semi-finals: £75,000 Eliminated in quarter-finals: £50,000 Eliminated in Round of 16: £40,000 Eliminated in Round of 32: £30,000 Eliminated in league phase: £15,000 - £18,500 (depending on final league position) I've always wished we would take this tournament more seriously, but especially now we have to. A proper run would be massive financially, we can't have a repeat of the nonsense elimination last season.

It was always likely to be Miller & O'Halloran for the rest of the season, I don't really understand why anyone is expecting a different appointment. Now that they've actually won a game it would also take a minimum of 24 games for them to have as bad a record as Murray's this season.

Frank McKeown resigns as Dumbarton manager after losing 4-0 to Clydebank. Wonder if they can now tempt Ian Murray away from his presumed gardening leave and save us some money.

I was reliably informed by every journalist who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about that Ian Murray was powerless to do anything as no manager could possibly get results with this team. Well well well! Obviously it was far removed from total football, but there were some massive performances there. When we conceded so soon after going 2-0 up there was a very obvious script for losing 3-2, but for all that it was natural to shite yourself every time Arbroath crossed the halfway line there wasn't actually a clear cut chance in that whole time, just a lot of getting into dangerous positions and doing f**k all with it. Gillespie was terrific, the number of times it was him breaking out of midfield when we'd won possession was ridiculous and he was often leading the pressing as the highest player up the park when Borso and Garrity were knackered as well. He's an injury prone 35 year old holding midfielder who's never been blessed with pace, that was an outrageously good shift. Thought it was harsh on Croker to be dropped after how well he played last week and he was excellent again today. That's two games not being managed by Ian Murray and two games that Sandilands has looked like a player having seemed miles out his depth before now, his run for the second was so good. Garrity's best game of the season today as well, for all that he should have given it to Sandilands for a tap in when he hit the post. Cupps however; for all that it's a howling decision from the referee to send him off when it's obviously not a clear goalscoring opportunity, it was dreadful defending to even end up in the position he was committing a foul in the first place. The ball should have been dealt with easily before getting that far. Extremely funny that we're not even bottom of the league now. Even if we average a point a game for the rest of the season which is a tall order we'd only be on 30 points; we are obviously still clear favourites for 10th, but we are not going to be Brechin. Our first win since f**king March. That's an occasion to ignore the off-field bollocks for an evening and feel happy about football. I was so close to not going today, I'm so glad I woke up and decided fuck it, I'll go.

Having been another dire performance until we scored, that was a team transformed after the equaliser. Easily the best we've played this season from that point until the final whistle, which is a low bar and there were still some bad performers - how bad is Carse in training that Robertson got 90 minutes playing that badly instead of putting him on? - but you can see what a bit of confidence does for the players without Murray draining every bit of energy from their souls. Some of them are still shite footballers, we should not see Bashir again unless we have no one fit, but grinding points when we actually have a fit centre forward shouldn't be out of the question. We created more chances in the second half than we have in the rest of the season combined.