vikingTON

1) How many people do you think did so? Because let's be clear - that was NOT the original premise of MCT. That was set up quite some time before the opportunity of fan ownership of the club actually became a live issue - the original pledge was not to 'own your club'. I think there's a fair bit of revisionism on display by some in the fanbase, who are against the proposal for their own reasons but want to make fan ownership the central principle. 2) Where I absolutely agree is that this proposal or indeed any other partner with an external investor, needs a clear and equitable set of principles for recognising MCT's ongoing capital investment. So if a consortium wants greater than half and half control, it should actually be committing to a greater than half share of capital investment than MCT. This was also the issue that the mystery clause between EFG and MCT never resolved - because we didn't even get to see it. The consortium could do this in the short term by increasing the immediate financial contribution, clearing your point 1) in the process. 3) The risk of falling MCT contributions comes not only from an external partnership, but also from 'the football club being a shambles and MCT a total zoo'. So while it's correct to question the impact of an external partnership on MCT investment, the current rate cannot be taken for granted on a status quo basis either. Patience, I think it's fair to say, is wearing thin despite a welcome fillip on the park in recent weeks.

Or... it's just the weekend and the results will be posted on Monday either way? What opportunities are being missed in this bizarre, alternative reality where MCT waits to massage the results? This is just risible fucking nonsense.

The deadline was to vote - I don't recall any such deadline being set for announcing results. And you're still to explain how on earth your demand for a result has any relevance whatsoever to the future of the football club, which you're somehow trying to link together. This is a quite embarrassing effort tbh.

It really hasn't been 'many years' since we've had a waterlogged section and a game postponed. This isn't 2008. We're nowhere near Dumbarton a couple of years ago leves of fail, but the park has been vulnerable to waterlogging ar the extreme end of the climate for about a decade if not more.

What on earth has that got to do with announcing the outcome of an MCT vote on Saturday or Monday? Is the Nikkei likely to plunge on this uncertainty?

This Scottish Championship club is in debt though. There are contracted obligations to the tune of £1/3 million pounds until June, that are beyond what the club's income can cover. And there are no serious assets to cover that either. That's not only debt (which every company has) but the definition of bad debt. You are conflating a balance sheet snapshot at year end with the reality of how businesses operate. As for the 'going rate', I seem to recall similar tantrums about EFG disgracefully reducing their valuation to a much, much higher level two months ago. Which led to the foolish resolution to see if a bidding war could be provoked. Well here we are, and the valuation of said (borderline) Scottish Championship club remains on a steady downward track. That's how a market works, to the extent that it ever does. So while Raj may have talked a fair bit of pish and also hurt some feelings too, none of that changes the reality of how GMFC is viewed by outsiders. Just as The Professor's statement said much more about how we are actually operating than the failings of the external proposal. Or mebbe they're all wrong and we're just 8 months away from becoming the next Vìking or Como sensation - who can tell!

Not sure what you're on about here: the results of the vote to progress to DD are the final results. It's not even remotely in the MCT board's remit to creatively interpret them - and I don't think for one second that they are doing so. It can be announced on Monday when the fucking volunteers using their time to run the organisation have the opportunity instead of their own down time.

The statement contributes nothing of substance - if the pitch wasn't playable according to the official just before 2PM then the previous club view was clearly useless. And the rain was clearly forecast and going to make the conditions worse both at start time and until the final whistle. It was also irritating to have the postponement conveyed by Ayr rather than the silent GMFC updates at that time. But the game would have been a farce regardless of pitch conditions and shouldn't have been played. This isn't a GMFC criticism - for days like today, the SPFL should just patch games the night before.

Move it to Boxing Day to replace the one that they moved to the midweek before for utterly moronic reasons. Three times the crowd that we would get today. I'd even see if you could give Ayr a small cut of that gate in a wee brown envelope to sweeten the deal (bribery charge, SPFL, what bribery here?)

Erm no: who said this, exactly? Be extremely specific. Here's some actual evidence of the discussion, that you've chosen to elide in order rend your garments about the small change on offer: So your 'why don't we sell a flat' proposal doesn't actually change the underlying issues here. This is not some unexpected, COVID-type event impacting an otherwise smoothly running, professional football club. We could get through to May 2027 with luck and a fire sale, but would have absolutely no reason to expect anything other than further, repeated incompetence and a rudderless ship at GMFC in 27/28, 28/29 etc. until a fundamental change in the operating setup occurs. So let's address that issue please in the true, Leninist form: what is to be done?

If you think that GMFC is in the position to hang around waiting for your just right set of dreamboat businessmen to get involved for no return, then you're delusional. Serious ownership involves recognising trade offs between what you want and what you have. Yet MCT members are still fundamentally divided as to what its priorities ought to be - and that's a big part of problem. Until we either park our fantasy island scenarios or set out what exactly our priorities and red lines are, then we'll get no interest from external partners at all. This is the third interaction with an external party in 24 months and our grievances are totally contradictory from one negotiation to the next - that's just not credible from an outside perspective.

- So MCT can't run it. - And anyone with the temerity to have external businesses can't run it, in case they ever make money (which would have ruled out Douglas Rae ever sitting on the board). - And we patently aren't going to pay the required sums for a fully professional executive backroom and board either. It's almost as if these demands are mutually exclusive, and at least one of them is in fact going to have to be discarded. We are not in a position to make every single member's perfect vision of the club - most of which contradict each other - get in the way of any potential solution to the actual crises at hand.

The security is already halfway towards its expiry date, at which point Crawford Rae gets nothing. The consortium's answers to why they want the security removed were not fully convincing and there was significant pushback on their claim about £2 million debt, but it wasn't a one-sided discussion. My view is that we clearly need a more detailed plan as well as further explanation not just from the consortium but also MCT and its legal counsel's advice - if a proposal goes through DD. It's a major stumbling block at the moment and hopefully the feedback from the meeting is heard clearly.

What, as opposed to the kraken at Sinclair Street suddenly awaking complete with 100 Ways to Raise £335k Fast - if only we tell yet another prospective external partner to get lost? This is not serious ownership.

The facts are that if any proposal is put to the MCT membership for approval, then all members of the consortium will be identified on said document. This was confirmed by both sides at Monday's meeting. The rest is just innuendo that serves zero purpose at this point in time. Not having the names of the consortium members is not a credible reason to reject a due diligence process where they will in fact be identified. The analysis that EFG's proposal posed zero risk to Cappielow and that such blatant lies were being peddled to torpedo any deal by scaremongering is based on straightforward facts. Ironically, I suspect that some of the same folk who used that trick to scupper EFG and let their dreamboat consortium ride to the rescue, now face the same claims being used against their own preferred outcome. And with far more convincing to do about their intentions. Much as the Professor's tactic of gazumping the Dalrada meeting was followed by his own group's proposal being gazumped - you couldn't make all this nonsense up. None of it is getting GMFC even a single step forward towards being a professional football club though. And time is very much running out before either its owners finally take some hard choices or face it all ending in tears.