vikingTON

You claimed it was a more serious offer than EFG. Literally nothing that you've stated above supports or is even relevant to that claim. That's not you keeping an open mind - it's about you applying selectively different standards to two potential bids, based on... what exactly?

As per the actual proposal, it involves: • less up front investment committed - indeed less than the 'drop in the ocean' that Graham Barr, MCT and the club labelled the previous proposal • for a larger shareholding • to then be steered by the whims of a ringer consortium - what happens as/when these 10 figures disagree amongst themselves? Who knows! • without any credible plan of moving the club forward, or indeed a coherent explanation for their interest at all There were some good reasons to be sceptical of the EFG proposal itself, as well as the sustainability of its working relationship with GMFC and MCT. You cannot possibly argue with a straight face that this is a more serious proposal. To do so is either to indulge in fantasies about the Big Business investors that don't match their stated prospectus - or is just blatant double standards.

Some laugh for McMaster to claim that he represents hard nosed decision-making, when he has been braying about some Braeside La Masia setup for donkeys' years, without any conception of how youth funding works (and therefore why GMFC gets nowhere near enough to justify his pet project). Back to the Port Juniors with yer da' please, and I don't care about your stories with 'Fergie' either.

Erm no - the Professor could have read the contents of his shopping list at the AGM and there would still have been a move to delay the vote, because certain MCT members went into the meeting absolutely determined to give their dreamboat local consortium the chance to make a (dung) offer instead. The disruptive tactics to achieve this were already taking place prior to the statement. The statement certainly made their job easier, but the prior MCT and GMFC statements about the EFG proposal were more important for that too. As for democratic rights, it is also the right of a democratic organisation to make delusional and wrong-headed decisions. And deciding to kick the can down the road - while claiming that we would then inevitably get a better offer from an EFG or dreamboat consortium bidding war - certainly looks to be dropping into that bucket.

We didn't play murderball - we actually played the ball out from under pressure quite well (a few risky but ambitious decisions when doing so). The forward players liked up well at times and Sandilands was very good. What doesn't show in the stats is the absence of a centre forward - which would have made a big difference - as well as Garrity taking a shot against the inside of the post, when having an option to square too. For once I wouldn't blame Garrity for shooting - the alternative wasn't an easy tap-in and the shot was a a few inches away from being a goal. For all the nerves and inexperience, Arbroath's only real chance in the second half was from Harrison's error at the goal, and at 10 v 10 we were still good value to hold on to our advantage. Really unimpressed with Arbroath over both games, but we would need an Imrie-style run to have us seriously looking at overtaking them. We could have a good October - but these are games that everyone else then gets to play later in this quarter of the campaign and will then push away to some degree.

In an organisation of size you're not going to be able to assert your views on who is and isn't working alongside you. If you have a line manager or boss, they're going to file your objections about the snake over there in the bin where it belongs. Same thing applies to a first team squad and coaches. No MCT director is in a position to determine who their colleagues will be.

"The Club entered the season from a broadly stable financial position. The facts changed because anticipated income disappeared." Lol wut They were already defaulting on payments last fucking season! You chose not to recognise this fact! It was always there! The club board's gaslighting exercise is fucking risible and MCT should not be party to this. Your reputation risks going down with them - enough of these self-pitying lies.

Agreed that both played well in the second half, but my bugbear with the first half performance rests with those two players specifically. The different strategies with the ball - to either fire the ball into central midfield for a flick on or then just shelling it randomly long kept failing. Raith were totally incompetent in not taking advantage of that to put the game to bed, by scoring a 2nd or 3rd goal. My complaint is this. Given the in-play situation as well as the temporary authority figure on the touchline, why aren't senior players taking leadership to cut the crap out and respond as they see the situation on the park? We're hardly playing some Guardiola-style automated system. If the original game plan (particularly given the lack of any centre forward) isn't working, you need to adapt on the pitch. Gillespie as captain and by far the most experienced player right now, should be calling such necessary changes to our approach. Roy Keane or a similar midfield presence (regardless of actual ability) wouldn't tolerate a first half display like that in possession of the ball without making decisive changes on the field. You change how your team mates use the ball on the pitch, and let the manager ask questions later. My criticism of Wilson is that while he can set an excellent example in his actions on the ball (such as trailing 3 Raith players along for a free kick in the second half), he doesn't use that authority to demand the same of others in the team. As a central midfielder, Wilson should have been furious at the nick of our use of possession in the first half - and alongside Gillespie should have imposed a change. He is an experienced campaigner by the standards of this current squad - his horizontal attitude is a minor issue for this team, but will prove a far greater limit on his own career unless he can be more assertive. In football ability and physical presence Wilson is better than the 'Scott Brown' jobber playing for Raith today. But Brown is a constant gobshite who won't tolerate from his team mates the full first half of nonsense as we produced in the first half today. That's why he's on a better career track than Wilson right now.

Assuming no health issues etc., an alternative candidate also sprung to mind during today's match. Is: A recognised football manager (as opposed to caretaker/player coach) A high level Hall of Fame level, club legend figure at GMFC - as opposed to birthday caird pish like the kit man being inaugurated Not contracted to another organisation and confident enough in his ability to revive his standing sans big pay packet So why not get the feelers out to Rowan Alexander? Alexander would be a box-office and actual management presence in the dugout, in a sporting situation in which we have nothing to lose. 1 point from 9 games is not salvageable by a random caretaker team from within, and we're clearly not going to attract a high quality of external candidates right now. Looking beyond the very high probability of relegation, the club needs a first team manager with the character to lead that part of the organisation rather than just mewl impotently in every engagement activity - and someone like Alexander would certainly offer that. If not Alexander specifically, this is the sort of profile that GMFC needs - not just for this season, but the likely turbulent future too.

Sandilands got an impressive number of goals and assists at Montrose last season from playing through the middle. A few good flashes today doesn't change the reality that he is being wasted out wide. Robertson was diabolical as the link player to the rotating ringer forward today - that's the position that Sandilands (or Savoury 'when fit') should occupy instead. And as ever we should be binning a formation with gubbins wingers, as soon as we actually have two fit strikers available.

I think he might have been trying to defend the (non-existent) honour of Easton, who had just completed his dying swan impression. Fully agreed with your judgment of the game.

To paraphrase Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, when it was claimed that no one wanted to lead the Soviet to overthrow an enfeebled, bourgeois, golf-playing regime (Provisional Government in Russia: Graham Barr on Sinclair Street): "There is such a person!" Bring Him Home.

It's not - or shouldn't be about that. It's about his absolutely toxic, woe is me presence poisoning the well. After the Livingston game he started chucking random players under the bus - whereas he pronounces himself thrilled at narrow defeats brought about by his own incompetence. And his tantrums about Carse etc. - all to get media sympathy for himself alone. There is a less than 10% chance that we'll be playing in this league next season. The club needs to unite and the first step in that process was to remove this gurning fucking loser from the premises.

So much for the lack of coaching badges and several other flimsy defences - this decision could and should have been taken long ago.

1) What, yet again, is your definition of 'improvement'? That was your original premise - could we risk improvement? (a curious situation for a professional sporting organisation to be in) - so WTF does that actually mean? 2) You are once again asserting - not asking the question - that There Will Be A Financial Cost: well what actual, concrete evidence is there for this claim about the practical elements? Counter point: A GMFC board that has proven so gullible and incompetent to rack up a £300k budget black hole because an already defaulting sponsor pinky promised some money, may not actually be Ruthless Titans of Industry when it comes to deciding whether to gunge a first team manager too. A counter point supported, notably, by their supine indifference to the plummet in form and performances in March and April 2026 - when there was a clear opportunity at the end of the campaign to balance the costs of a new management team against a new first team budget. So this mewling will not do. What actual evidence is there that the GMFC board really want to remove Murray, but have their hands cruelly tied by a lack of funds? Be extremely specific. 3) Murray leaving of his own accord is irrelevant to the discussion. And once again - GMFC has added more than half a dozen first team players in the last month, so this lack of agency problem (for which there is zero evidence) would be entirely self-inflicted anyway. Murray's failure was screamingly obvious in April - our next game will be in October. It still is not the responsibility of the fanbase and paying customers to dig the GMFC board out of any such hole, nor give them a free pass for such utter incompetence.