vikingTON

Would this be 'the MCT' who were against the deal last month, or the other MCT who are pushing it forward now? We'll be needing separate spokespersons for the Real, Provisional and Continuity MCTs at this rate.

I didn't vote for GM because it would be bringing too much old business back into the room (surprise!), and didn't vote for McMaster because his youth revolution obsession belongs back at Port Juniors. There were other candidates who didn't get voted in, so it's a problem that MCT voting members really have to own too.

Perhaps it will share some home truths about the 'local consortium' option, in between announcing an even bigger, glorified charity bucket than the one that we're passing around now.

Can't agree - the reference to the then MCT board making mistakes indicates that blame is being put on the previous officeholders. That was pretty significant information for you to overlook tbh. The four new members of the MCT board have a right to assert their own judgment in pursuing or handling investment proposals. I can't say I'm massively surprised that they would like to revive the Estrella proposal: at least to the point of getting it to an actual vote instead of the holding position decided at the AGM. Regardless, I'd be amazed if it actually succeeded at said vote given all the mud-slinging and entrenched opposition to it.

He's 16 and back at school (AFAIK) during the week. So how exactly should a supposedly professional, supposedly full-time and supposedly well-coached first team integrate him into the squad on a matchday?

We knocked the ball around okay* but the key issues are 1) the gubbins formation, that leaves our lone forward completely isolated and devoid of service and 2) the lack of any sort of attacking plan. As in... what exactly is the vision for a Morton goal (in open play?) Does it involve using high crosses from wing play, or cut backs, or through balls behind the opposition defence, or players running from deep? QP had a clear understanding of how they wanted to use that hammer thrower Todorov, with players ready to collect the knock downs. We have no plan in the final third. It is an exercise in randomness and hoping that something will turn up. That is entirely on the manager and it will relegate this team regardless of how many ringers are signed. * Passing the ball around neatly is of little value unless we can up the tempo significantly. It's Johanssonball for long periods, which is why 45 minutes to respond to the second goal yesterday yielded only a couple of chances.

That's not a slight caveat - a payment schedule wasn't in place and the GMFC/Dalrada line about this was as @dunning1874 stated. You are reading the facts backwards to justify your current judgment. "This led to Laird travelling to America to explain that cashflow would imminently become a problem if payments weren't made. Bonar had been ill and that's why no payments had been made." If you believe John Laird's massively self-aggrandizing account, sure. But there's absolutely no reason why we should, in terms of the details at least. I've no doubt that he went to the US - but to preserve the going concern of the football club out of the goodness of his heart? Not buying that. "The big FAQs around the new Dalrada deal opened on a question about the "missed" payments and then went on to talk about how the new deal would be structured to avoid a repeat of the situation which has arisen." These were really not the 'big FAQs' compared to those relating Dalrada's ambition to assert control over the club, in exchange for renewed sponsorship (or else Dalrada takes their toys away). Once again - if an actual default of Dalrada's payments was central to discussion in May '25, then they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on when attempting to co-opt the GMFC board.

Okike was - at least today - ropey and ensured that QP could use our left hand side to see the game out in the closing stages. Despite adding a dozen ringers I don't think that we have a better left back option than Longridge, which just isn't good enough to survive.

No, this simply isn't true. Brian Bonar's pitch, once invited to join the call in May 2025, was that Dalrada funding would be extra, strings-free money for the first team. MCT were free to take that funding - in exchange for a board including his son in law etc. - or could leave it. There was ZERO discussion by BB in his transatlantic intervention about 'already defaulted payments because my company is skint', during his charm offensive. The issue raised in the room was actually about succession: what would happen if BB became infirm, or handed over his business to the next generation (the dauphin Raes, essentially). I've no idea what these attempts at gaslighting are supposed to achieve, given that the actual fucking meeting was only 16 months ago.

The flight to America was categorically not cast as 'dodgy sponsor can't deliver funding - until Laird saved the day' - it was 'I'm securing BB's ongoing commitment to the club, in spite of the shitshow amateur structure that Dalrada needs you to rip up'. What else do you actually think the May '25 meeting was about? The Dalrada and their flunkies position - quite clearly in May 2025 - was that they were the brains trust and financial muscle who needed to make the amateur hour organisation more efficient. There was discussion of 'what if' funding consequences once BB joined the meeting remotely - but that was categorically not the premise of the meeting. Edit: Reposted because I accidentally deleted the original.

You keep restating these claims and yet there is no factual relationship between them and the actual premise of the MCT meeting at the Morton club in May 2025. What payments in the schedule were disclosed as missing in May 2025? Be extremely specific. And there is still no credible explanation as to why these rather significant facts were entirely passed over by the many different speakers - above all The Professor! - who would have obviously highlighted an existing default from Dalrada as relevant evidence, had it been made known to MCT members. The alternative, Occam's Razor explanation is that you are simply reinterpreting the sequence of events based on later information. And that 400-odd random people in a room weren't engaged in a conspiracy of silence about some key facts that You Knew and now want to blame everyone else for not considering.

1) Did they? Did we? What payments were missed? Because I was present at the May '25 meeting and don't recall any such missed payments being disclosed. It was a pretty long meeting TBF, but I also don't recall any such information being discussed among others who attended said meeting, either at the time or over the following 12 months. 2) As someone who was highly critical of Dalrada's manoeuvres last summer, such as: • the drivel peddled to the Tele's pet rube journalist about the club going bust • the defenestration of an MCT board for not following the Bonar, Laird, Robinson, Barr axis of decision making I think I would have registered 'Dalrada defaulting on payments' as a relevant issue, had it been disclosed. You don't pass over such critical information. 3) Even The Professor did not raise this issue in his 4 hour lecture to urge against accepting Dalrada's proposals either. An intervention that was incidentally correct, even if their alternative didn't work out well swimmingly either. A curious absence, if Dalrada had just publicly defaulted on payment prior to that meeting taking place - it would have been the clinching evidence for that case. That all considered - is it possible that you are simply misremembering the actual passage of events?

Did they, aye?

Dalrada were not defaulting on payments in April/May 2025. In April/May 2026, Dalrada were defaulting on payments. So while there should be lessons learned about the transatlantic charm of Brian Bonar - who I'm sure means the best, but couldn't back it up - trying to tag MCT members with responsibility for the massive black hole created by the club board this season is risible. It's 99% on those who had a defaulting sponsor, were exposed to a third of a million, and chose to lollop along regardless.

Of all the terrible decisions made over the summer at the club, offering Michael Garrity a new contract is unquestionably the worst.