vikingTON

Businesses use short term loans from banks or other financial service providers. EFG are not that and asking them for gainers prior to any working relationship being established is wild. As is tapping an undisclosed soft loan benefactor without any apparent intention to disclose this information prior to voting. So when it comes to interested parties using information as a weapon, it's clearly not just EFG (whose business agenda should be treated critically throughout). MCT representatives have no such excuses. Either consciously or not, they let their own preferences cloud their duty of transparency about GMFC's operating situation, in an attempt to influence the vote.

What part of season tickets and 1,000 MCT member contributions do these panhandlers not comprehend? What happened to the assurances of less than 12 fucking hours ago that the club had no issues with making payments? So what is there to 'fight' here, exactly? For Ian Murray to sign his 17th midfielder? My knee-jerk reaction to this is that MCT should be removing themselves from this nonsense immediately, or they'll be seeing a further decline in revenue in the near future. IT WAS AND IS YOUR JOB TO RAISE REVENUE AND SET BUDGETS.

The second bit at least provided some light comedy intervention: as if GMFC is suddenly going to crank out a new commercial or prize money generating monster, having already committed to the bull of of its squad and flogged most of the merchandise and STs for the coming year. The only possible source of significant new revenue is somehow scraping through at the first stage of the Scottish Cup (which means avoiding Lowland League and above opposition) and then drawing one of the Ugly Sisters. It's the equivalent of a tramp finding £100 on the street. The Estrella deal is not the only course of action available - but that MCT and board representative was being disingenuous in setting out the alternative. Which brings me to a key point being somewhat overlooked IMO amidst the complaints about the harsh and cruel tone of the Estrella statement: the now confirmed fact that GMFC sought a loan facility this summer first from Estrella Football Group, and then from an unidentified soft loan provider. Here's the key question for MCT officeholders: was it ever intended to disclose this highly pertinent information to members, prior to the vote opening this morning at 9am? If not, why not? If so, what evidence is there to support your intention to disclose on good faith? Was it on a detailed agenda or notes being used to direct last night's meeting? It was not even hinted at within GMFC's statement expressing its own concern about the financial security of the club if the Estrella deal were approved on Friday - a statement that a couple of MCT officeholders must have at least seen, if not directly approved as club board members too. Why wasn't this key contextual information disclosed in the GMFC message? Others may hold a different view, but for me any representative at last night's meeting who was both aware about the club's requirement for external short term loans and who did not intend to disclose this to MCT members - the ultimate owners of the club - have failed in their duty of transparency and trust. By choosing to give out only partial information themselves ahead of the most important vote in MCT's history, they do not have the legitimacy to continue in their own post.

1) I think the chair and Russell doing the mics did a reasonable enough job handling the situation given the circumstances of the meeting. If there's an EGM, we should reach out to Supporters' Direct again because we need an arbiter though. 2) None of the organisations involved come out of this evening's event in a positive light whatsoever. None of them - GMFC, MCT, and Estrella Group - seem inherently trustworthy in their claims and counter-claims. 3) Call me cynical - because I am - but the mystery consortium riding in to the save the day strikes me as a classic spoiler tactic. MCT and by extension the club has been open to such investment for years, yet just last Friday ten local business leaders were suddenly prompted to take action? Why didn't they consider taking action back in May, when the club might not have assembled a League One (or Two) quality of squad which has a massive material impact on any such investment? Though of course Mr Renfrew deployed the exact same spoiler tactic at the meeting to discuss the Dalrada deal last May, so can have no complaints. 4) We have opted to kick the can down the road because it is better than taking a decision based on incomplete information. Fine - but we still need to make a decision soon and may yet regret our delay too. The further revelations from this evening about soft loans etc. that were not denied or challenged by board representatives only underline the reality that the status quo is not a viable option. GMFC is both fundamentally devoid of leadership and devoid of room for manoeuvre right now as well. The bottom line is that we have spent the best part of three hours this evening, and are not really any closer to establishing a coherent path going forward.

What organisational safeguards are in place to stop the incumbent GMFC board from either deliberately or through incompetence running an unsustainable budget? How would any such safeguards work in practice anyway? I think you are setting an artificially high bar in demanding protection (going concern status remains A Thing), while overlooking the fundamental right that any external investor in this operation should expect to have in exchange for significant capital investment and expertise. I don't think we must necessarily accept investment - there are other potential investors I wouldn't be touching with a bargepole - but Estrella are fully within their rights to look at the current nick of an operation and want absolutely no part of maintaining the status quo. And what was tellingly missing from the GMFC board's intervention was any ideas or indication at all about what their alternative plan would be, to deal with the systemic issues at the club under their (and if course inherited from previous) board governance. Without any additional capital to work with, and without any evidence of grasping a single nettle yet in terms of the operating model or backroom operations.

Only if you think that both the current GMFC board and Estrella Group representatives are going to spend the entirety of their board meetings vetoing different budget proposals - on what grounds exactly? What is the benefit to either party from doing so? GMFC has had ample time to put together a suitable backroom operation without external input and has objectively failed. I couldn't give a toss then about power over such decisions being allocated elsewhere. If anyone views Estrella's interest or intentions are malign, then by all means vote against for that reason. The incumbent board's mewling about holding precious power to then do nothing with it is irrelevant. GMFC lacks an actual executive of backroom operations with the level of oversight and responsibility that post should entail - and it badly shows. With all due respect to Mark Kelly, that vacancy has not in reality been filled just because his job title has been changed and his list of responsibilities expanded.

Given that the current GMFC board have already had: • over 1 year to fill a GM role (having pledged a 'review' of the structure, from which nothing has been heard) • over 8 months to replace the club chairman role, and • appointed from within for the CM role without suitable replacement I would be filing any claims about their dreamboat cheap and qualified backroom staff being cruelly vetoed by Estrella Group in the bin where they belong. The GMFC board have been found wanting in this specific task and it is no longer tenable to be run as the status quo any further. The question of overall finances is separate from the question of voting/veto power.

GMFC has been running without a General Manager since DPM left in June 2025. GMFC has been running without a board chairman since 5 January this year. GMFC's grand plan to develop commercial revenue has been to promote from within, while also expecting the same person to help with the first team kits and God knows what else. GMFC is currently letting a first team manager use the media on a daily basis to draft his own exit interview, while falsely claiming that the club will be unable to meet its professional obligations, without any consequences whatsoever. So how is a 'veto' on the board's non-existent decision-making going to impact the club negatively, compared to all of the above caused by a lack of ideas? It would take an extraordinary degree of naivety to accept the GMFC board's objections - when the objective facts (regardless of whether they're decent people) is that they are collectively not up to the job.

...which sounds like exactly what GMFC needs, given it is currently a rudderless ghost ship and just 15 months ago had certain board members act as blatant mouthpieces for the Dalrada interest. How is that working out, exactly? And why have those who got their useful tools in the GT to peddle the Dalrada pitch v imminent administration in May 2025 nonsense not resigned in ignominy yet? Who within the GMFC boardroom challenged any of the decisions that have taken us to this point? Now any issue about committing further funds/budget is entirely separate and worth taking very seriously. But whoever signed off on that statement needs to read the room in terms of the leadership and trust that the existing GMFC board has demonstrated. Your collective fate should be the least of any potential consequences being considered.

This isn't aimed as a 'pro-deal' argument, but what would that risk be? If Estrella put forward their capital then they get a stake in GMFC and positions on the board. If they decide to walk away, the capital doesn't go with them. The risk in any such deal is to whom Estrella might sell their stake to in an exit - it wouldn't directly impact GMFC as a going concern though. I fear tomorrow's meeting will produce much more heat than light. Edit: The meeting at the Morton club last May was handled as well as feasible by the Supporters' Direct moderator. I hope there's similar provision if possible tomorrow. As for MCT, if the specific terms of the deal (and Estrella's longer term aims) can be fleshed out, then there could be an opportunity to do something different with those 1,000 subscriptions to the current 'underwriting of crap squads' model of capital investment. If Estrella or another group aspire to majority ownership of the club, then MCT could actually use its capital investment for complimentary, alternative projects. Including infrastructure that GMFC could benefit from without owning (like fanzones/commercial spaces). Or (if members voted for it) running the youth setup that the football club itself patently should not be operating.

I'm away so am not looking through a whole document at the moment - what is specifically stated regarding 'control'? GMFC is a rudderless ghost ship at the moment and certainly needs control to be exercised. MCT should not be running the club on a day to day basis or even at boardroom really, so it's not coming from there. If a minority shareholder have ideas and/or personnel to provide that then it is badly needed. The devil - as with Dalrada - is in the detail. How may the majority shareholder continue to exercise their legal rights, in the event that minority stakeholders ideas and personnel prove to be garbage or simply run their course.

The tribunal point is valid but the reputation point is not. The idea that GMFC will get blacklisted for cruelly binning a media gurning manager who is performing at an utterly abysmal level anyway - not just by a single, big, bad fanbase's standards but now at all Scottish football, East Stirling level joke club standard - is wide of the mark. This would merely count as something like Murray's 17th sackable offence since January. He might still get his much desired, soft soap exit interview with Scott Burns of The Record or similar, but he'd be fooling nobody with even a passing interest about the context of his dismissal. And let's not forget that Ian Murray has lasted longer this season than in his most recent role - which clearly hasn't put many off applying to work under the cruel Raith board that got shot of him, including Imrie. Rowan Alexander should be treated with greater respect by the game over his managerial departure than this now serial busted flush.

Unfortunately I very much doubt GMFC have a media communication/disrepute clause in the first team manager's contract. The bigger problem is that the first team manager is always expected to accept media duties (which are often thankless tasks) but should be held accountable to professional standards too. I reckon many managers would rather ditch those duties altogether rather than be constrained, but a media policy should be added as a general principle going forward regardless IMO. There should be a clear distinction between issues that the first team manager is qualified to comment on, and other comments or speculation that are clearly detrimental to the interests of the wider organisation they represent. If a new manager doesn't like that condition, then they should be passed over in the recruitment process. Any semi-competent organisation has an official communications policy to discipline unauthorised and damaging speculation from employees.

What? You're the one claiming the lack of pre-season friendlies wasn't Murray's fault. So the onus is on yourself to support this claim. What, specifically, prevented Ian Murray from fulfilling a fixture versus Civil Service fucking Strollers (!), and then playing any other outfit in a bounce game the midweek before the Stranraer home match?

Silence from the club... about what exactly? If you're referring to Murray's latest nonsense mewling, it was only out earlier today. GMFC should react but shouldn't rush out an ill-thought out, Rangers-esque statement that would only enhance the spotlight. The wider situation has been spelled out by the previous club update and MCT/Estrella's update on the proposed investment. It hasn't been ratified yet, and doesn't need to be just because we have some torn-faced loser on manoeuvres to get his 19th central midfielder on board.