dunning1874

That was an audience member asking rather than anyone from MCT, I think if there was any answer to that from the MCT board members it was a very brief one sentence it's not their place to speak for Estrella before Alastair Renfrew took the mic again, while several people in the room interjected to say that was covered at the previous meeting. I'm fairly sure he voted in favour of the motion to delay or if not he abstained, there was only one vote against and it was someone else in the room (who I won't name as they're just a rank and file member who I've never spoken to and it's up to them to put their name to it if they want to). Not going to bother with a full on synopsis of the meeting now because being in there for 3 hours was soul destroying enough without recounting it tonight as well, but it's certainly not made the mood around the club any more positive.

Exactly the hypothetical scenario I laid out above where Estrella want to spend more money than we can afford on the first team (or anything else) because they think success on the park through increased spending will address the shortfall by itself, the rest of the board aren't willing to sanction it because they feel that's jeopardising the future of the club if the gamble doesn't pay off and no one will budge. All the indications we have that Estrella concern themselves more with infrastructure rather than the Dalrada style stupidity of ringfencing for the first team mean this should only be a doomsday scenario that doesn't come to pass and we have no reason to assume malice or incompetence on their part, but when all we have to go on is their word it would be naive to shrug our shoulders and say the bad scenario probably isn't going to happen, so let's just ignore the lack of a safeguard to stop it and allow them to have a veto over the budget in perpetuity. I'm not arguing about the need for change but the security of the club financially; if the veto exposes the club more in the event that Estrella turn out to be malicious or incompetent, why not have the deal without it when that can give the club - GMFC as a whole rather than whoever the board members happen to be at any given time - some protection in that scenario? I sincerely hope it's an academic discussion and they only have good intentions while being entirely competent at delivering on their plans, but hope isn't a reason to ignore the potential downside. If the veto wasn't there then in the event that they did turn out to be a bad actor in one way or another, they could at least be overruled. The main concern being the stability of the club is also why we need an answer tonight on what the financial position is both with and without the investment in the event that Dalrada fail to pay a further penny. Hopefully also a doomsday scenario that won't come to pass, but we need to be fully informed on the implications of either vote.

When the agreement explicitly provides a veto over the annual budget, the question of overall finances is inseparable from the question of the veto. As above, the General Manager role was filled with the internal appointment of Mark Kelly in March; it was the Commercial Manager role which was vacated to do so and hasn't been filled. Which still doesn't change the point being correct, because one person doing both jobs is clearly asking too much of anyone.

You'll get no argument from me that we urgently need more people and new ideas in the boardroom (although the internal promotion of Mark Kelly was to General Manager, not that that changes your overall point being one I agree with), we can't keep treading water like this. If Estrella prove to be negligent when it comes to trying to be sustainable - which the GMFC statement suggests they want to be if it's their intention lopping a six-figure sum onto the budget without explaining how it can be paid for, though I'll wait to hear Estrella's own explanation of what they want to do before making a definitive judgement - then giving them a perpetual veto over any appointments to senior positions can expose the club to further financial risks. For example Estrella want a General Manager/Football Manager/Technical Director/Commercial Manager/whatever who'd require a salary outwith budget the rest of the board don't think we can afford, Estrella want it so they veto any alternative cheaper appointment to those positions, meaning the rest of the board are left in a position where their choices are either going without anyone in the post, deepening the rudderless ship problem of the club being run by an ever-dwindling skeleton staff, or going with Estrella's expensive option and hoping the sums somehow add up. Obviously in an ideal world Estrella will be bringing sound business sense and expertise so this won't be a concern and it's nothing we'll ever need to worry about, if so you could view the existence of the veto as a sound safeguard to ensure all budget and hriing decisions are sensible where Estrella could be the sensible voice in the room stopping a future John Laird figure wasting money on a future Billy Davies equivalent, but when we don't know yet how competent Estrella are going to be the existence of the veto feels like something that lacks a safeguard for the club rather than providing one. Hopefully this doomsday scenario would never come to pass, but if they end up being shit at this and veto any attempt to set a first team budget that they think is too small without justifying where to find the money for the increased budget they want, what then?

Worth noting that of the four GMFC board members, Paul Farren joined in April 2025 so many of the machinations of last summer were already well underway before he got there, David Whitton joined in January 2026 and Kevin Weldin only joined last month, so Graham Barr is the only one who's survived long-term with Dalrada's chosen few in John Laird, Sam Robinson and Ross Gourdie all gone now, so Barr is the only one it'd be fair to have issues with regarding last summer IMO. No argument with anyone who thinks that's still a resigning issue for him as I did at the time, personally the replacement MCT board saying they were willing to let bygones be bygones was enough for me too. I think you could actually look at saying they can't accept the Estrella deal as it stands due to the veto and spending plans as a case of the board learning from past mistakes regarding Dalrada and not wanting to expose themselves to financial risk or external control over budgets in the same way again. Though that timeline above does mean everyone but Weldin was on the board for the decision to take another season of home shirt sponsorship from Dalrada, and you do wonder if we'd have been better off with a much smaller sum from a reliable source who'd actually have paid on time and allowed us to stick with whatever budget we could originally put together rather than the current mess.

Things had already changed with the Dalrada situation having been publicised by the club on 17 July, that being before the agreement was finalised; the MCT email to members advising the agreement was finalised and would now proceed to a vote came on 31 July. That we're now in a position that people are saying a vote shouldn't go ahead because negotiations are ongoing, that the detail shouldn't have been shared with MCT members at all, is entirely down to Estrella deciding they wanted to move the goalposts and reopen negotiations in the two weeks since. It looks extremely underhand and opportunitistic to me.

Over to Estrella to answer what the club have said in that statement, but if their plan is simply to start launching more expenditure onto the wage bill without a plan of how it's going to be paid for then it has to be a no. You can't jeopardise the future of the club like that.

I'm no legal expert but I've given myself an extremely tedious Sunday morning reading through the document to try to understand as best I can, because fuck basing a vote this important based on whatever 80 different brands of complete bollocks ChatGPT comes up with when people ask it for a summary. This is likely to be a long post even by my standards, but needs must. Payment will be £600K, split into three tranches of £200K. That'll be £100K as soon as the deal is signed followed by £100K on 29th January 2027 constituting tranch 1, then quarterly payments after that of £50K at the end of each April, July, October & January, up to January 2029 to take the total to the £600K. Shares are transfered gradually after each individual payment. Estrella have the right not to take further tranches only if there's been a breach of warranties (which all seem to my unqualified reading to be standard legal protections with nothing particularly to worry about) or the shares agreed for previous tranches haven't been transferred on receipt of payment. This is a share issue creating new shares, and at the end of it all they'd have 2,163,441 shares (35%) to GMFC Property Limited's 3,607,528. Those GMFC Property Limited shares are currently 89.78% of shares; after all the new shares are transferred to Estrella by January 2029 that would then be 58.36% of shares held by GMFC Property Limited. Estrella get first priority in any future share issue, though they can't simply start another one without the consent of the rest of the board; that needs to be a GMFC board majority decision. If Dalrada haven't paid the £340K they owe the club in full before any share issue, the price Estrella will pay is fixed at what they're paying now; £600,000 for 35% of the club, which works out at about 27p per share. If Dalrada have paid up the £340K, the price reverts to original proposal on the basis of £750K for 35% of the club, which works out between 34 or 35p per share. In the scenario that a share issue happens again and Estrella take up their first refusal on the basis of around 27p per share, pushing the GMFC Property Limited shares below 50% of the club would require another 1,033,800 shares, which would cost a further £286,709. Two points to interject here away from my understanding of the document and insert my opinion. It's not made clear either way in there, but I'm assuming the £340K figure for Dalrada is what they'll owe in total with all payments still due for the rest of the season as well, so that's the figure due by May/June 2027, not what they're currently in arrears by as of August 2026. I don't really see why a price for a hypothetical share issue sometime in the 2030s should be fixed based on what a sponsor did or didn't pay in 2026 and I don't like having that number potentially fixed in perpetuity, but by the same token while it's disappointing that Estrella have revised their investment downwards, it's also the case that whether it's £600K or £750K for 35% that's realistically an overvaluation of the club anyway. We'll initially have a board of 6, with the maximum allowed being 7; the four current board members Graham Barr, Paul Farren, David Whitton and Kenneth Weldin, plus Estrella's appointments David Dwinger and Xander Czaikowski. Club OS, one of the technological platforms Estrella provide, will be available free of charge to the club for as long as they hold shares. Estrella and their directors will have a veto over anything in schedule 3 of the deal, unless they fail to comply with the payment schedule. Schedule 3 covers the annual budget, signing players, appointing key football & non-football staff, and any capital expenditure outwith the budget of over £10K. Interjecting my opinion again, this does present an issue for me. It shouldn't be Estrella's approach with what they've said about the importance of infrastructure rather than having the Dalrada mindset of throwing money at the squad, but it does make it theoretically possible that we have a board of 7, the other 5 want to approve some capital expenditure on something like a social club on the land between the Cowshed and Norseman, but the 2 Estrella directors say no because they want more money spent on the team instead, so the capital spending can't happen because Estrella don't want it. You could potentially have similar wrangling over the appointment of a manager or Chief Executive where Estrella have their own preferred candidate, the rest for the board disagree but Estrella can veto the choice of the rest of the board so they have no choice but to follow the Estrella pick. A veto over appointments to that extent is too much. As said I'm no expert so might be missing something, but I can't see the claim made elsewhere (tbf Robert McCahill didn't say this either and it's people misinterpreting his facebook post rather than him claiming it) that it gives Estrella sole power to relocate to a new stadium, change the name of the club or the badge; what it gives them is a veto to stop the rest of the board doing one of those things without their consent. Cappielow remains wholly in the control of GMFC Property Limited so I don't see any reason for alarm about the stadium at least. Estrella can't sell any of the shares they purchase within 3 years of the first payment, so they can only look to sell and get out once all payments are completed. If/when Estrella do come to sell shares, GMFC (not MCT) has a right of first refusal on those shares, at a price set by Estrella, and 25 days to make an offer.

This is where they can't win though. They were already being criticised for not having something out there far enough in advance before the vote, having previously been criticised for taking as long as it has to get to a vote, so they put something out there 2 days in advance with the caveat that some things may still change because Estrella keep moving the goalposts, and then they shouldn't have put that out there until it's finalised either. It's a no-win situation for MCT that raises more questions about Estrella for me.

The vote on the deal will be opening after the AGM, running to Thursday with the results announced on Friday regardless, so when the detail is released to members clearly has nothing to do with the urgency to get it done. It will be done or not done by Friday. I'd also hope the details aren't coming out as late as 5 minutes before the meeting starts so we all get a proper opportunity to understand it in advance of the meeting, but if it comes today or tomorrow that's still ample time to read and understand it.

This is exactly what Murray was hoping to achieve with his comments. Fabricate a ridiculous lie about the club not being able to fulfill fixtures when that simply isn't a concern, see it generate more national headlines about the perilous state Morton are in, then when he inevitably finds himself unemployed and looking for jobs again in a few months he can use his own lies as a defence of his own reputation. 'How could I possibly have succeeded there when things were so bad off the park that the club was in danger of forfeiting games? My job was impossible, that mess was nothing to do with me.' I don't think John Rankin is a good manager, but contrast how he conducted himself in far worse off-field circumstances at Hamilton than Murray is dealing with here. Rankin tried to protect the players and create a siege mentality so they'd go out and fight for each other. The only point where he held his hands up and said he was powerless to do anything more was the point where he resigned, which is a logical step for a manager who no longer believes they can do their job due to off-field circumstances. Murray however is absolving himself of any responsibility, claiming that he's powerless to avoid defeat even against Lowland League teams, and yet simultaneously insists he's still the man for the job. It would be much easier to have sympathy for him about the situation he's been placed in if he wasn't also such a classless dickhead. He couldn't make it more obvious that he's completely given up on getting results with Morton and couldn't give a toss what impact it has on his players either; his one and only concern now is his own reputation in the game with an eye on his next job.

Murray in the Tele today talking about forfeiting games. “If we continue like this, then there's a real, real possibility that we'll have to forfeit games, and that is the worst possible case for everybody,” Murray said. “Either that or we go with the guys from school, which isn't fair on them, because the bigger picture is their development." We have a squad of 19, without including Murdoch as third choice keeper or any of the 15-17 year olds who've been used in recent weeks. It's pretty hard to escape the conclusion that he's trying to goad the club into sacking him now. His defence of signing Carse when central midfield is obviously not the priority is incoherent nonsense.

Been mostly without signal for the last week so catching up on this now. For the same reasons already mentioned by others, it's a no to McMaster for me. When we had the Dalrada mess 15 months ago I said then that I thought the way Graham McLennan unceremoniously had ties severed with the club having been a honorary GMFC director was a real shame considering his past contribution to creating MCT, but I'm a bit wary that we'd be retreading old ground here if he's returned to the MCT board. In fairness there's nothing in his statement in the election email that suggests he's looking to settle old scores or anything like that, but when you look at the mess we had last summer and the incompetence in the boardroom which surrounded and followed it, Laird, Robinson & Gourdie are all gone from the GMFC board now, and we've since had a new MCT board who've rebuilt a working relationship with the GMFC board. All sides of the GMFC & MCT boards of May 2025 agreed that the working relationship had broken down prior to the embargo fallout and subsequent Dalrada interference. I was firmly on the sack the GMFC board side of the argument then and that included Graham Barr, but now with the main players on both sides of that fallout gone and the new MCT board we've had since repeatedly stating they're happy with Barr as one of the representatives due to how he's conducted himself since, I wouldn't want to see us starting off the era of Estrella involvement in the GMFC board with another bunfight between MCT & GMFC over the removal of an MCT rep on the GMFC board. Maybe it's massively unfair of me to think that's a way this could go and if there's no agenda to settle scores from last summer then fair enough, but with the turnover we've already had on both boards, the reset of the relationship between the two boards and Estrella bringing two new GMFC directors themselves anyway, I really hope that with Dalrada's representation on the board gone this can be where we draw a line and get on with constructively working to improve the club off the park rather than relitigating old battles.

Much better performance than expected so it's hard to find much to criticise. You can't legislate for losing goals because the linesman isn't watching the game. There's clearly very little goal threat in this team so hopefully Gorman will fix that, but it's encouraging that we were capable of the kind of battling performance we've rarely seen under Murray. Wilson was terrific and Cochrane very good as well. Bold call by Murray to persist with Black rather than rejigging the midfield with Gillespie or Wilson going back there but he played well.

Aye, can't believe I'm actually advocating taking Wilson out of midfield with how much I railed against it last year but in Ballantyne's absence and now that we have Cochrane to provide some legs there, muddling through with Wilson who'll do a better job at full back than Gillespie while Cochrane, Gillespie and Sandilands can be a midfield three is better than trying to get through a game with Gillespie in defence. That way if we end up needing to use O'Toole, Black or Murphy through a lack of alternatives it can at least be in midfield. Won't be able to use Carse tomorrow as trialists aren't allowed in the Championship.