vikingTON

The 'sponsorship' deal is irrelevant to the 9 or so ongoing first team contracts that Dalrada pledged to offer support to. That's where the black hole is, not because Dunga McClung Ltd missed out on the chance to swoop for the jersey sponsorship.

Given the GMFC board has no alternative mechanism to fill the large shortfall in its operating budget and believes that there is a serious risk of running out of cash by October - never mind May - then so long as the funds are satisfactorily in place then the club board should be open to accepting it. GMFC board members have a responsibility to keep the business operational and not default on its own commitments first and foremost. The statement posted on the GMFC website last Friday was quite clear in communicating the club board's hostility to the EFG proposal, if sadly not on the actual reality of the club's financial position. They cannot have their cake and eat it: either there is a critical situation that needs a cash injection, or there isn't. The MCT board on the other hand does not have to directly consider going concern status on behalf of its owning membership. They have the ability to advise and then the membership have full ability to decide what its best interests are as the owner of the business. A St Mirren fan could offer £10 million tomorrow to turn the club into St Mirren B and no matter what the books say, MCT members are not obliged to accept and are not the body held accountable if the club defaults on its commitments.

1) and 2) If there is a further MCT meeting between now and the next AGM then I'll be glad to either propose or second a motion of no confidence - that you think Monday's event needed yet another 'point of order' would be wild if it weren't just laughably transparent nonsense. 3) A) GMFC pledged in May's end of season statement that the first team performance was unacceptable and that standards would be raised going forward - already knowing and apparently having fully informed EFG too that the key backer underwriting the first team budget was in default on payments. So standards could not possibly be raised while that situation continued - but the fiction/delusion persisted right up until losing to Linlithgow and East Fife necessitated a change in tack to 'poor us' panhandling. I wonder what would have been communicated and when, had the LC group ended in a bog standard 5-6 points and out. B - In last Friday's statement GMFC focused on the concerns surrounding the financial viability of EFG's demands - prioritising these above the promised injection of £200k worth of capital this year, and £600k over three years. Well the phrase 'beggars can't be choosers' springs to mind. The club has no assets to sell and no cash in hand/bank debt facility - so if GMFC faces an immediate and dire shortfall in cashflow, then its board's responsibility to maintain a going concern should have supported a capital investment offer on the table. Instead they came out in opposition, so things can't be too bad for the year. C - Only after clutching their pearls about EFG's statement did anyone connected to GMFC or MCT bother to mention the contact for funding from EFG, or the soft loan to God knows who, or the apparent cash-flow crunch in October (which is apparently vastly different to EFG's disgraceful slur saying that it would run out of funds this month instead). None of the above demonstrate logical consistency in communicating the club's financial situation. As for it being up to the GMFC board to manage what information to communicate: this is not a PR exercise with the Daily Record; this is communicating to the actual owners of the football club. It is not the GMFC board nor in fact the MCT board that are the owners of the club - they are entrusted to their role as executives. The actual ownership is the collective membership of MCT, who were being provided with false and/or partial information from all three interested parties at the AGM and then expected to cast a vote the next morning. If that's the sort of selective communication approach that you find appropriate then that's your view. But in my view it is entirely corrosive to the model of fan ownership, and not much better for the concept of fan capital investment either. Neither EFG nor Golden Casket nor even Dalrada (who didn't even own any shares) would have tolerated being left in the dark - yet Muggins the MCT member is expected to 'trust the guys', 'back the boys', pay £400 p/y and also chip into a Fighting Fund whenever said guys make a roaring cunt of setting a budget.

The 'sponsorship' is not tied to the home shirt as the going rate for sponsoring the Morton home shirt does not in fact get flogged for around £250k - it's just like Golden Casket's status all over again. I fail to understand why you are focusing on such a minor issue when GMFC was gormlessly signing up a raft of players whose contracts were being covered by a debtor who was already in default on payments by April. That is the decision which created a black hole in the finances and that is the decision for which heads must roll.

A different shirt sponsor is irrelevant, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic nonsense compared to the third of a million quid black hole that was yawning open under the GMFC board's watch over the past 6 months. As was the hard luck story of holding back one entire contract worth £40k to 'limit' exposure to Dalrada. The club board knew the potential exposure. They extended that exposure over the summer to the lion's share of its potential total amount. That is a completely unacceptable series of decision-making, never properly disclosed to the club's actual ownership, for which heads should roll immediately.

1) It's possible for Bart to be an effective point of contact for members of the MCT board, while remaining a completely inappropriate representative of the owning membership. As someone else seems fond of saying in every second post at the moment, these things are not mutually exclusive. As a member rather than an MCT board director I want a board room representative who has generated sufficient trust. 2) The MCT AGM that ran for nearly 3 fucking hours and almost descended into a zoo at times? We didn't even cover the Estrella deal within the stated time frame. But aye let's chuck in a motion of no confidence as well, so that we can still be in Regent Street now. Be serious please. 3) You have ample reason to suspect this given the complete lack if transparency by the club and its contradictory statements between Friday, Monday and then yesterday. You choose not to suspect and take the club in good faith because you are acting as a fan. That the club cannot and IMO should not be taken in good faith is an outcome of their persistent lack of transparency in the first place - and the ongoing absence of accountability for their own actions. I'd encourage the renewed MCT board to signal their intent to do better than the latest, all-summer farce to have unfolded at this club, between now and the apparent crunch point in October.

If we binned every single responsible GMFC and MCT board member then it would demonstrate accountability and taking responsibility for failed leadership, which should be a precondition for any new fundraising drive. Throwing more good money at dung leadership and More McKenzie Carse without a serious plan for change is just a daft football fan response rather than a rational one.

Graham Barr was a prime mover in giving Dalrada opportunity to throw their weight around and trashing the club's reputation in the press 15 months ago. Yet despite repeated and frankly self-pitying pledges to resign, he still represents MCT at club board level. This should have been regarded as inappropriate after last May's mess and untenable once their big mates at Dalrada became a bad debtor. It's well past time to go and for a new rep with little such baggage to provide that link between club operations and the owning membership. Have they come clean, or is it just another selective set of disclosures to rebut Estrella, that do not reflect the true operating reality of the club? Why didn't they come clean in last Friday's statement, or the video in July, or their bravado statement about Unacceptable Standards in May. And let's recall that no evidence was actually presented for this 'fine this month, but big problems by October' line. There's no cashflow projection to support this - people are taking this claim on trust alone. Yet there is simply no credible track record of transparency and honesty to support this stance, IMHO. 'Not being Estrella' should not make the other two parties any more credible right now.

You are overlooking the fact which was confirmed last night - and a rumour that was already common knowledge by April 2026 outside of the club - that Dalrada were already defaulting on payments before season's end. So the responsibility for a hole in this season's budget must be shared between the bad debtor and the GMFC board. The latter had the ability to remove the vast majority of its future exposure to Dalrada funding in the close season. They only removed 1 single contract: £40k removed, to cover a projected £340k shortfall if no future payments are met. Who is responsible for that hole in the budget, other than those who set it? And they could also have gone part-time or hybrid over the close season to account for a drastic reduction in the wider player budget, or opted for a combination of the two. They didn't do this though. They instead opted in classic GMFC fashion (over decades) to try and muddle through, preserve their (and a bizarre section of the fanbase's) fixation with full-time football, and hope that a phone call or two to Brian Bonar and asking for hauners from external parties would suffice. Oh and let's not forget their defiant statement in May about how they would be imposing much higher standards in the season to come - knowing full well that their major sponsor was at that time not providing the funds promised. So if anything, they knowingly missold their product to ST holders. The executives on both boards kept the reality of the situation hidden from the actual ownership until a) we started losing to LL teams and then b) had further details smoked out by a hostile Estrella statement in the middle of August. There is not one but a litany of failures at boardroom level here, that should result in a majority of responsible heads rolling prior to any sort of salvage job. In no other business than football would such a detachment between accountability and public bailout be tolerated - take the blue and white specs off.

IIRC Dalrada were fundamentally opposed to this, and made it a working condition of their partnership that MCT capital also go towards the shittest ever attempt at ambishun.

1) Not enough of a concern for joint board members to put a £200k capital investment offer on the table in a disinterested manner to the owners of the club. 2) Not enough to stop them from divesting from all but 1 of fhe Dalrada backed players in the close season, despite the default having already started in spring, and 3) Not enough to stop the signing of a 17th central midfielder less than a fortnight ago. So GMFC turning on and off the concern tap on a daily basis should be treated with contempt, until they can either get their story straight and/or resign for credible leadership to take their place.

Well I don't recall the club issuing a 'Fighting for two months time if Dalrada don't pay up' Fund today. So who is exaggerating - is it the club's claim today, versus board members last night, or versus their complete omerta surrounding any other financial risk than Big Bad Estrella four days ago? Because setting out three positions in five days based on your intended audience are mutually exclusive. I'd also like to know why are you assuming this timeframe from organisations that have i) just demonstrated their bad faith in presenting financial transparency to the owning membership (such as the extent of Dalrada defaults and seeking hauners from external lenders) as well as ii) the specific claims of a rep/board member, who has previous form for peddling utter nonsense to a gormless Tele journalist, back when they wanted to get their big mates at Dalrada running the show? The right-thinking section of the GMFC fanbase - and MCT members - need to stop clutching all their pearls about Estrella statements already, and face up to the other two bad faith and manipulative bodies still operating out of Sinclair Street. Any fighting fund being issued today should have pre-empted by a resignation of a majority of GMFC board members for failing in their basic duties in getting to that point. The new Financial Director can stay.

Oh aye and let's not forget that Dalrada were already in arrears for their payments before the 25/26 season ended. Yet the GMFC board opted not to take the logical action of divesting all risk from a bad debtor and sucking up the loss of our frivolous 'fullll-time futba' status. Just phone Uncle Brian in America again and pretend that nothing else can be done. So if the club can't make it past fucking August without such a risible appeal to the wider football community, heads should be rolling more widely than the Reign of Terror ar Sinclair Street, before anyone is asked to put more good money in dung stewardship.

How would the club "go to the wall" before the end of the year, as an organisation with no external debt (unless the board have forgotten to mention that too, like their soft loans to cover wages decision). Is there a substantial risk of cashflow issues and our never-to-much-exist points total being deducted? Very much so. But that doesn't come close to causing a close of business, as about 50 other Scottish football clubs have demonstrated this century.

If we're actually closer to the brink than was 'admitted to' last night to the actual owners of the club by their representatives on the board, then a lack of funding is the least of our current problems. Who is serving whom exactly in this organisation?