vikingTON

I agree that the shares have no direct value - this was, quite rightly, the result of placing Cappielow outside of GMFC. But GMFC is an organisation into which MCT puts around £200k of capital investment, IIRC, each year. That is not insignificant, and should be recognised in any future arrangement with an outside party (e.g. a random £2 million sum invested from a third party should be treated as equivalent to 10 years MCT contribution, in terms of control). Dalrada's sponsorship without part ownership approach has ended up with the tail wagging the dog, rather than having the interests aligned at all.

I would describe this as wishful thinking, given that Bonar is not actually directly present on the board, and has made similar pledges of change within the last 6 months that haven't amounted to anything. Not forgetting the original claims that Dalrada would be offering an innovative way to slash club costs, which turned out to be a gateway to de facto operation of the club. So while MCT representatives on the GMFC board have every right to raise these issues, there's no good evidence to expect that they will be acted upon. Especially while MCT are unable to provide their full number of representatives to that board. Next month will be the telling point, but as things stand the boat must be rocked before the gormless captains steer it onto rocks and sink it. We are back in the dying days of the Rae regime, relying on harness from a company chiefly to fund their own incompetent largesse.

No we haven't - we could cut our cloth this summer and discard most of the squad. That is the core of our costs. Those who were foolishly/imprudently handed two year deals can either be told to find a new club, or made the core of a drastically reduced squad in size and quality (on paper at least). There is an alternative at this stage then. It might not produce a great few years on the park - it would more likely than not lead to relegation within 3 years - but it is viable. GMFC does not have a divine right to be either a full-time or Championship football club. That we have fallen woefully behind the likes of Arbroath in increasing revenue under the Raes and now their tribute act is the reality that everyone has to face up to. That option to remain independent rather than dependent is not indefinite though. Any big changes planned by Davies/the board in January (I'll believe that when I see it btw) necessarily limits our scope to change tack in the upcoming summer. Every two year deal chucked at mercenaries makes our choices more and more limited. January '26 is the crucial turning point. I'm not going to tell people what they should think about Dalrada, Laird and their capacity for change. But everyone should be mindful of the clear fork in the road that is now in front of us.

Millen remained at GMFC when Imrie took charge because a previous board - not the one (never mind the current one) that appointed Gus McPherson didn't want to pay off the entire management team. Imrie applied for utterly honking jobs at the same level as GMFC (Hamilton!; Inverness!) while your great dream boat Millen was still employed by the club and not under any disrepute. You would therefore have to be quite impressively naive to think that Millen's departure explains Imrie's desire to.... err, yet again try to jump ship to a better immediate term option. Which in Raith's case isn't likely to end in a bounced cheque and administration just yet either.

Also an employee owned local business, which is therefore closer to the community right now than the bloated mess that GMFC represents. Even if GMFC were to magically find a 10% efficiency over working with Smiths, would that be justifiable? I don't think that that it would. Chucking a local business under the bus for the sake of yourself is not a good long term look for a community owned football club. Goodwill cuts both ways.

Show us your workings please.

Your 'don't forget' advice is quite appropriate, given there is no tangible evidence (from an outside perspective) of his contribution in that role at the club. This may or may not be 'Ross Gourdie', in the entirely autopilot run GMFC board.

While thinking about our mismanagement over the last week or so, the closest parallel I found was with the 2018/19 season. We started that campaign just spunking money with no apparent clue as to our end goal, then lost the manager that was expected to maximise that investment. Until this weekend, I thought that the parallels ended on the park for the remainder of a bog-standard, 48 points as usual season. While QP already playing Airdrie in the 3rd quarter means that the league table still requires some context, we are now too close to a Johannson level failure than I'm comfortable with.

I don't see any viable mechanism to hold Laird and Robinson to account, without 'destabilising' the club. Like it or not, Dalrada/Bonar's position was made pretty clear in May/June. You are engaging in wishful thinking, quite frankly, in trying to detach certain GMFC boardroom members without jearpodising the deal. It isn't happening. But more significantly, your demand would completely fail to solve the real issue. I don't believe that Sam Robinson for example is the great ill at the club. Laird's role is certainly up for debate, but it's the entirely unaccountable and completely rudderless setup that they happen to represent that is the issue. Last Saturday was a case in point. If Robinson was the person who ended up trying to deal with the turnstile problem then that's hardly grounds for personal criticism. The point is that there shouldn't be a failure and it shouldn't be incumbent on some random board member to intervene. When both happen, your existing club structure is simply incompetent. So what is the point of this partnership? GMFC needs a professional and paid chief executive independent from either Dalrada or MCT. It quite obviously needs a fucking Finance Director too. For any board member to look on the absence of those two roles with supine indifference underlines the real problem. Dalrada have the deciding say right now by default - but have done nothing to show even basic competence.

@Greacen2000 Moving this discussion from the other thread - I can't agree with this. 1) The 'publically stated performance goals' for GMFC board directors are no more impactful than the set of nonsense targets Dale set for the club last summer - all of which have been quietly shovelled in the bin. 2) John Laird made big claims about addressing urgent issues like the Finance post more than 6 months ago at the Morton club meeting. Unless it is being kept as a state secret, nothing has been delivered. 3) Ditto Bonar's flying visit a few months ago promised imminent changes behind the scenes that fans would likely find boring but would matter - again, nothing delivered. It is not like last summer because the whole purpose of a January meeting is to assess performance, see what (and if) Dalrada are offering as a partnership going forward, and making a judgment for how to proceed beyond May-June 2026. Last summer was a stay of execution to see how things develop. In my view, we cannot continue with the partnership as things stand. I'm not against co-operation with private investment at all - I've consistently argued that a 50-50 split would be an ideal structure. My issue is that this private investment is simply incompetent, and setting us up for a whole stack of serious failures coming down the line. You fairly argue that you just care about Morton being successful. So did Dundee fans though, when in a very similar position they were lured by the initial funds offered by US investor Callum 'C'lum' Melville to 'make a success' of things. It ended, predictably, in yet another administration. The parallels are striking. More immediately, I fear GMFC is heading towards a Hamilton-style, systemic failure of governance and regular SFA sanctions, unless action is taken in the near future to get its house in order. If the current board are the supposedly responsible adults in the room, then that room needs emptied.

Holding the club to account, based on what mandate? MCT's board is there to serve the views of its membership - have you written your strongly worded complaint to MCT yet? Do you think their inbox is flooded righr now by similar correspondence, in the context of 1000 members? 'We demand you change based on some whining on the club forum' is really not a credible lead-in to hold any club board to account - even one as risible as GMFC's current guise.

Erm no, I think we've had quite enough statements with no meaning or purpose for the time being. This is getting into Rangers territory. "Everyone at the club remains fully committed to ensuring we have the right people in place to move the club forward positively, both on and off the pitch." That'll be why you have failed to replace a Finance Director over 18 months since first notice, and played the Chief Executive role under review 6 months ago and... radio silence. Throw in the promises of imminent structural changes by Bonar at the Airdrie away game months ago - which didn't come to pass either. The only update needed is to announce the January meeting to determine whether this club governance structure - with its seemingly indispensable individual parts - is fit for purpose and worth continuing with.

You were responding to a poster who stated both of those things, agreed, and described the subsequent system as 'Kafka-esque'. It really isn't though. 'Rudderless ghost ship' would be a much more accurate description, but the semi-detached status of Laird has been known about and Davies has already stated he has no intention of being the first team manager. Edit: As for your "made up title", that's just you describing a role that you don't approve. There are plenty of football clubs in this century that no longer just appoint a guid fitba man to manage the team, have a board to hold him account, and no level of decision-making in between. It's not 1994.

Not really- it's quite common for sponsors to not want to buy a club, and for a technical head/DoF to not want to be its manager. Is Klopp likely to rock up as manager of RB Leipzig any time soon? I very much doubt it. The structural issues at Cappielow lie in the chairman position, the lack of a full board of representatives, and the yawning gulfs where a Financial Director and Chief Executive are supposed to be. If even the last two were filled, then there would at least be a clear line of responsibility for keeping the club ticking over on a week to week basis.

Colour me shocked and stunned that you have changed your tune when it comes to, err, a caretaker manager rather than an actual manager doing the media work then. You don't like Davies being at the club, we get it by now. The reality that Davies could be doing nothing other than helping needy children at Cappielow and you'd still find something to be furious about - selectively, in this case - makes your stance not very credible though.