Morton Club Together Updates

[TaunTon]

8 minutes ago, LargsTON said:

  Morton fans are almost conditioned to accept our fate and where our standing in Scottish football lies.  Thats through decades of mismanagement at every level of the club.  It's a sad state of affairs.  Morton isn't a lost cause by any means but it requires more than MCT to give the club the seismic shake up it needs to finally progress to a more realistic level.  We're certainly better than an annual relegation battle in the championship but under the current model that will indeed be our ceiling.   It doesn't need a sugar Daddy, there's massive prize money in the championship now but that's somehow been forgotten.  We just need strong leadership which we've never had in the three decades I've followed the club which is a crying shame.

 

I've always disagreed with your take on MCT but I fully endorse the above. We can improve if we have the ambition, a degree of bravery and leadership. At the moment we seemed to be paralyzed by fear of failure. 

[LargsTON]

Look at St Johnstone.  A core support of around 2500 even now yet double cup winners last season and regularly punching levels above themselves.  The only advantage they've had over us - albeit major - was McDiarmid park effectively being handed to them.  In that respect a lot of our current problems can be traced all the way back to John Wilson who had control of the club at a time when we had football grants available and a conveyor belt of talent being sold for substantial amounts; which brings me back to my original statement, we've been grossly mismanaged for decades.

Edited October 29, 2021 by LargsTON

[Cet Homme Charmant]

5 hours ago, LargsTON said:

The sooner this whole fan ownership nonsense is fired into the sun the better for everyone.  By all means use MCT as a vehicle to supplement wages and boost the playing budget but we simply don't have the numbers required to make us anything other than a tinpot outfit for the rest of what may well be our short history.  It beggars belief how anyone could think this set up would work in the first place with less than 1000 contributors.  Dunfermline have 3000 and are hardly riding the crest of a wave.  Advertise for new owners, investors, whatever....who cares.  Just anything but MCT.  

Sadly starting to come round to that way of thinking myself. I can't stop myself from wondering what the other offer that Crawford knocked back in favour of MCT was, and if they'd still be interested.

[TopCat]

21 minutes ago, LargsTON said:

Look at St Johnstone.  A core support of around 2500 even now yet double cup winners last season and regularly punching levels above themselves.  The only advantage they've had over us - albeit major - was McDiarmid park effectively being handed to them.  In that respect a lot of our current problems can be traced all the way back to John Wilson who had control of the club at a time when we had football grants available and a conveyor belt of talent being sold for substantial amounts; which brings me back to my original statement, we've been grossly mismanaged for decades.

Gradual improvement under MCT is the only show in town. Being raging about 30 years worth of our useless chairmen and Morton's rightful place is old-man-shakes-fist-at-cloud stuff. We've only just managed to slither out from under the last useless regime and their massive pile of debt. 

MCT might turn out to be a total disaster (and the signs so far aren't exactly inspiring) but sitting hopefully waiting for a new ultra-competent owner to pop out of the woodwork is speculative birthday card pish.

[LargsTON]

52 minutes ago, TopCat said:

Gradual improvement under MCT is the only show in town. Being raging about 30 years worth of our useless chairmen and Morton's rightful place is old-man-shakes-fist-at-cloud stuff. We've only just managed to slither out from under the last useless regime and their massive pile of debt. 

MCT might turn out to be a total disaster (and the signs so far aren't exactly inspiring) but sitting hopefully waiting for a new ultra-competent owner to pop out of the woodwork is speculative birthday card pish.

All you're doing is reinforcing what I'm saying about large swathes of our fanbase simply accepting our fate.   There won't be any gradual improvement under MCT, only managed decline.

Raging is stretching it a bit, I'm too apathetic to be raging.   I rarely even visit this forum anymore, I was only compelled to post when I listened to that pitiful Q&A. I've been to one game all season and I've no idea when I'll return, that's a position I never thought I'd find myself in as a hardcore supporter who up until recent seasons rarely missed a game home or away.  Tbh it saddens me to feel this way but I'm not prepared to endorse the current farce by contributing financially where the club can't even be arsed getting the basics right.  I'd rather spend time with my daughter on a Saturday than show blind faith based on the promise of jam tomorrow.  Some other mug can take the baton off me in that respect.  You shriek about ultra-competent owners?  I'm not asking for that at all but just for once in 34 years id like us simply to be run with a basic degree of competence and take it from there.  

Edited October 29, 2021 by LargsTON

[LargsTON]

1 hour ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Sadly starting to come round to that way of thinking myself. I can't stop myself from wondering what the other offer that Crawford knocked back in favour of MCT was, and if they'd still be interested.

I was told what that offer was recently and we've dodged a bullet.   Morton would suddenly become a far more attractive proposition to buyers if MCT was there as a vehicle to boost the playing budget and supplement wages every season going forward.  I'd be all for that but outright ownership at our level?  It's madness as we're currently realising as the days and weeks go by.   

[vikingTON]

If MCT were being run as a scheme to supplement wages only, then I for one would be out. That's what a season ticket, prize money and commercial revenue is for - an extra guilt trip fund is taking the piss. Now that we've removed the previous owners, the purpose of MCT funds should be to give the club capital investment to bring it at least fucking close to the 21st century.

I'd be content for up to half the club to be open to investment and as an incentive to gain genuine outside expertise, but selling outright when we've just secured our only asset would be a recipe for disaster. 

We don't actually face this binary choice right now though. If fucking Arbroath can waltz their way past us on the pitch, then we are in fact doing something very wrong with the resources that we already have. Going for 'stability' was the wrong call because it meant accepting more of the same utter shite that summed up last season's nick of a display, only with fans at the game to get raging about it. This was pointed out all along, and now here we are and it's not even Halloween yet. 

If we are poorly led then the solution is to force obvious change through pressure on matchdays (i.e. the manager situation) and remove those responsible for crap decisions when they come up for election down the line. Cards should be well and truly marked. 

We should of course have started that process with the Finance Director, who was happy to insist that getting Alan Moore to fund his own Ryanair trip to scout a Slovak pub-league for players would not end in disaster because his account books said so. When you allow that level of 'football insight' in the room and present club policy, you are asking for trouble from the start.  

Edited October 29, 2021 by vikingTON

[LargsTON]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

If MCT were being run as a scheme to supplement wages only, then I for one would be out. That's what a season ticket, prize money and commercial revenue is for - an extra guilt trip fund is taking the piss. Now that we've removed the previous owners, the purpose of MCT funds should be to give the club capital investment to bring it at least fucking close to the 21st century.

I'd be content for up to half the club to be open to investment and as an incentive to gain genuine outside expertise, but selling outright when we've just secured our only asset would be a recipe for disaster. 

We don't actually face this binary choice right now though. If fucking Arbroath can waltz their way past us on the pitch, then we are in fact doing something very wrong with the resources that we already have. Going for 'stability' was the wrong call because it meant accepting more of the same utter shite that summed up last season's nick of a display, only with fans at the game to get raging about it. This was pointed out all along, and now here we are and it's not even Halloween yet. 

If we are poorly led then the solution is to force obvious change through pressure on matchdays (i.e. the manager situation) and remove those responsible for crap decisions when they come up for election down the line. Cards should be well and truly marked. 

We should of course have started that process with the Finance Director, who was happy to insist that getting Alan Moore to fund his own Ryanair trip to scout a Slovak pub-league for players would not end in disaster because his account books said so. When you allow that level of 'football insight' in the room and present club policy, you are asking for trouble from the start.  

Why?  At the moment your contribution to MCT is money down the drain.  At least if we had competent owners running the club you'd almost certainly see your money produce a far more successful team on the park if it went solely towards the playing budget.  I'd be on board with that and maybe I'm off the mark but I'd suggest many more would be in the same boat.

The reason Arbroath are waltzing past us is because we have absolute Muppets trying to run the show on the back of 800 subscribers to this disastrous model.  We also have no wriggle room to enforce change as we'll be perched on a continual financial precipice under MCT.  I know this was also the case under Rae but it doesn't have to be the case going forward.

We'll revisit this chat in a year when we're treading water in league one for now I'm out.

Edited October 29, 2021 by LargsTON

[vikingTON]

8 minutes ago, LargsTON said:

Why?  At the moment your contribution to MCT is money down the drain. 

I signed up to the MCT scheme for the sole purpose of building a stake to gradually huckle the Raes out the door - not to fund a first team shortfall - and it turned out that it was the mechanism to get them out within two years. I'm delighted with the outcome of that investment so far. Much of the hard work should have begun this summer, but instead we didn't bother our arse and settled for 'stability' instead. 

"At least if we had competent owners running the club you'd almost certainly see your money produce a far more successful team on the park if it went solely towards the playing budget.  I'd be on board with that and maybe I'm off the mark but I'd suggest many more would be in the same boat."

If the owners of the football club were competent, then they wouldn't need a guilt trip fund to finance a competitive first team budget in the first place. 

"The reason Arbroath are waltzing past us is because we have absolute Muppets trying to run the show on the back of 800 subscribers to this disastrous model."

Well no, last time I checked we also still had season ticket holders, gate revenue, commercial revenue and prize money to run the show - as well as a chunk of ridiculous taxpayers' money chucked at clubs last season. Having 800 subscribers on top of that is not less than the club's original resources, it is more. To treat it as a top-up to fund haddies like Muirhead is a waste of time. 

"We'll revisit this chat in a year when we're treading water in league one for now I'm out."

If we were in League One now instead of gormlessly celebrating 'survival' and 'stability' last season then at least we'd already be clearing the decks at the club. Instead we have pointlessly delayed the inevitable. 

 

 

 

[irnbru]

The biggest problem for me is shown by people criticising the current board but that's a self made problem by MCT. 

They should really be pushing the fact its a community owned organisation and have mechanisms in place so that the members have an input or at least get a quick route to answers for questions. 

At the moment there's a real us and them feel to the whole thing with people on here clearly not sold on the idea as a whole. If these mechanisms and the shared ownership idea were the main selling points from the beginning then I think there would be more good will. There's absolutely no reason this couldn't have been done. 

As it stands its been left to the SLO to organise a Q&A so unless you're bought into the idea of fan ownership then you're not going to think there's much benefit as a member as your opinion doesn't really matter and there's no route to get answers. 

Personally, I think fan ownership is the only option we have as there's not many millionaires out there that want a club as a plaything and there's not much money to be made for investors at our level. I can see why people aren't behind it with the way things are just now though. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by irnbru

[Guest capitanus]

On 10/28/2021 at 7:17 PM, Jamie_M said:

 

Dear God, where do I start....

[Mr.Blue]

16 hours ago, LargsTON said:

Sorry but I can't accept that nonsense at all when I see clubs of similar or lesser stature leaving us in their shadow both on and off the park.  Morton fans are almost conditioned to accept our fate and where our standing in Scottish football lies.  Thats through decades of mismanagement at every level of the club.  It's a sad state of affairs.  Morton isn't a lost cause by any means but it requires more than MCT to give the club the seismic shake up it needs to finally progress to a more realistic level.  We're certainly better than an annual relegation battle in the championship but under the current model that will indeed be our ceiling.   It doesn't need a sugar Daddy, there's massive prize money in the championship now but that's somehow been forgotten.  We just need strong leadership which we've never had in the three decades I've followed the club which is a crying shame.

 

This.

So called 'smaller' clubs have been out performing us for years. The latest example being Arbroath. Our predicament which has went on for as long as I can remember is down to poor leadership and decision making. For so long there has been no long term vision or plan at all and I'm not even entirely sure there's one now but if there is there's a lot of work to be done to even begin.

[dunning1874]

I wouldn't say there haven't been concerns before now over various issues, but that Q&A has certainly left me more worried than I've ever been about the direction the club is going in. Essay incoming.

I've said all along since MCT was founded that I don't see fan ownership as necessarily condemning us to becoming Airdrie, Clyde or worse. In fact I see it as the only way we could realistically avoid that fate as circling the drain under the Raes with a giant debt mountain shows that a sugar daddy was going to end that way anyway. However it's absolutely essential that for fan ownership to work, fan owned does not mean fan run. They've been running the club for months and are now officially confirmed as owners, but the whole operation still reeks of well meaning amateurism held up by volunteers rather than any kind of professional competence: pretty much every single answer there made that feeling worse.

You have to acknowledge they've inherited a binfire of a football club with a legacy of literal decades of incompetence hanging over it: there's not much that can be fixed overnight and turning us into a slick operation with the professional reputation of a club like Motherwell is something that would take several years. Also, while there have been many issues where I've thought they've done the wrong thing, in most of those cases I could at least see the logic in their thinking.

However, none of these caveats justify some of illogical stuff they're coming out with here. So to take one of the issues I disagreed on and was covered in the Q&A, I would never have kept Gus MacPherson on as manager for this season; he failed and failed miserably at the job he was brought in to do last season, which was to keep us out of the bottom two. However you can see the logic of keeping him on; experienced manager at a time of upheaval off the park etc. What there is no logic to justify and sets alarm bells off is trotting out the completely ridiculous justifications for a two year deal given in this video, which suggest that no one on the board has the slightest clue what they're doing.

Paraphrasing, but 'we gave him two years because we need stability.' Handing someone a two year deal that (the subtext suggests) you can't afford to end isn't creating stability, it's creating absolutely needless instability. We should aspire to have a managerial team in place for several years whenever we make an appointment and hope the continuity as a result brings success - going through 17 managers in 21 years is clowncar stuff - but the fact is it's very possible that a manager's performance will make it necessary to replace them. You have to consider that possibility and plan for it. You can't just say "we want to keep a manager in place for a while, so we're going to keep this one in place to the end of his contract no matter how he performs in the job and therefore we don't need to consider any contingency for needing to remove him."

That's utterly reckless nonsense which creates massive instability, and is especially naive when the manager we're talking about finished bottom of the league in his last job at this level 10 years ago and was factually the worst performer of the three managers we had last season, one of whom was a fitness coach. If you're saddled with a manager who has you hurtling towards relegation and you're powerless to remove him from his job, then you are in a far less stable position than if you have the power to make a change which could avert that relegation.

We have much the same problem with the financial answer regarding the two year deal question. Paraphrasing again: 'We have to remember we don't have a big money backer to rely on.' Well yes, not being reliant on the whims of one individual was literally the whole point of the exercise of fan ownership. That's not an excuse for any inaction by the board; if you've failed to take this into account in your financial planning for the season then it can only be described as negligence and you clearly aren't fit to have any role in financial planning at a football club.

Sacking a manager is an entirely foreseeable expense for literally every professional football club on the planet. If - and it remains just an if but the tone is hugely concerning - it has somehow become a financial impossibility to do so there are really three scenarios here.

1. It is because of the two year deal and you signed off on a two year deal anyway: your position is untenable and you must resign.

2. The two year deal isn't the deciding factor and it would be the same whatever the contract length, but regardless you have signed off on a budget which leaves absolutely no contingency for this entirely foreseeable expense: your position is untenable and you must resign.

3. The model of ownership which MCT have advocated, talked up to the support and got over 800 fans to sign up to somehow makes this a financial impossibility under any circumstance: then the position of literally everyone who was in a leadership role pre-takeover is untenable and they must resign.

There are no reasons for fans to give anyone leeway there, if there's any truth in it is a massive indictment on every single person involved in decision making that leaves each and every one of them with no credibility.

I'll go into less detail from here as the post is long enough already, but there are similar concerns with other answers. I felt strongly that they needed someone with football expertise involved from the start - it might have avoided the above clusterfuck they've created over the manager - but you could just about accept the logic of only looking to address this once the takeover was complete. Now, the line is basically, 'Yeah if someone comes up who'd be willing to give us their time for free at any time over the next few years we'll consider it, but it's not a priority.' Sorry, that's simply unacceptable to the point of negligence. The absolute catastrophe of a season we're having is enough evidence of how damaging this oversight is: learn from your mistakes, avoid making them again and make fixing this with a proper football decision making process the top priority.

As an aside I do think it's worth pointing out that no one involved here is any less qualified than Douglas or Crawford Rae were to make such decisions, but again, the whole point of this exercise is supposed to be improving things, not continuing to blunder on with the shambolic amateurism of the last 20 years.

Same problem again with the commercial answers. There's at least acknowledgement there that they need to do better, but why are we still only at the point of "we're looking at developing a strategy?" We're months past the point where a strategy should have begun to be implemented, they shouldn't just be thinking about what it is. It's also worth saying here that not only has nothing improved yet in this area, it's actually gotten worse.

Even look at the website - again you could perhaps see the logic in saying there are better uses of people's time than typing up match previews and reports, but having stopped doing those there is absolutely fuck all on it other than 'please play the lottery and please buy up hospitality places'. How are these entirely worthwhile attempts to generate revenue actually going to be seen by anyone if there is never any football content on the website to get fans looking at it in the first place? It's been taking them weeks to even update the fixtures page with results. That's no reflection on the employees of the club who had no issues doing this in a timely fashion under previous regimes, but it's another thing that's extremely easy to fix and should be immediately.

[Guest capitanus]

On 10/29/2021 at 4:44 PM, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Sadly starting to come round to that way of thinking myself. I can't stop myself from wondering what the other offer that Crawford knocked back in favour of MCT was, and if they'd still be interested.

Enter thu Eeeeeeeeze-dales. 

 

***Everyone gasps in awe****

[vikingTON]

41 minutes ago, capitanus said:

Enter thu Eeeeeeeeze-dales. 

 

***Everyone gasps in awe****

You know, it's a bit rich for you and others to come out with this, having also tried to shoot down fan ownership since the beginning.

I can understand why people fear that fan ownership will fail and I'd be more than happy with having private investors contributing something to the setup as well. I can also see why people might want to jump straight to another private owner instead. Given our experience of the Raes, I don't agree with that choice. 

What sort of ownership model do you want exactly, and who is likely to provide it? 

[Guest capitanus]

7 hours ago, vikingTON said:

You know, it's a bit rich for you and others to come out with this, having also tried to shoot down fan ownership since the beginning.

I can understand why people fear that fan ownership will fail and I'd be more than happy with having private investors contributing something to the setup as well. I can also see why people might want to jump straight to another private owner instead. Given our experience of the Raes, I don't agree with that choice. 

What sort of ownership model do you want exactly, and who is likely to provide it? 

I need to take issue with this, as I am not averse to the idea of 'fan ownership' nor am i against the idea of supporters groups or supporters as individuals having a stake in the club.  Also, I DID NOT try and 'shoot down fan ownership' since the beginning as you stated, as fan ownership takes on many guises the world over and has proven can be successful in some instances, and indeed our previous incumbents as owners were long-term supporters of the club, so their tenure can also be described as 'fan ownership' dependent on how loose you wish to use the phrase.

I will concede that this particular scheme 'Morton Club Together' I was very critical about since its early conception, probably more critical than most and I have no regrets about any of this.  Dare I say it, as this season has progressed I feel vindicated with most of my comments and criticism.  

However, one aspect in which I have complemented MCT which I reckon you've agreed with me - they achieved more in two years than GMST achieved in two decades - but I reckon a lot of that was by virtue of an owner who was eager to dispose of the club as it was proving a long term drain on their personal wealth rather than any commercial ingenuity on their part.

As for what your question 'what type of ownership model do I want exactly'?  They aren't exactly the type of thing that you can take off the shelf and say 'I want that one'.  I would have loved a younger guy with the passion of Douglas Rae that was albeit more astute, or i'd love someone like you to scoop the Euromillions jackpot and spunk the lot on Morton over the next 30 years, but the reality is neither of these are likely to happen.  I do believe that the current business model isn't really the problem here, the problem is more to do with the personnel involved and the decisions that are being made by them are leaving people uninspired and disenfranchised, and in some cases fucking outraged.  This isn't how 'fan ownership' should be, and its not my fault that I see it whilst you dont.

[vikingTON]

11 hours ago, capitanus said:

1) I will concede that this particular scheme 'Morton Club Together' I was very critical about since its early conception, probably more critical than most and I have no regrets about any of this.  Dare I say it, as this season has progressed I feel vindicated with most of my comments and criticism.  

However, one aspect in which I have complemented MCT which I reckon you've agreed with me - they achieved more in two years than GMST achieved in two decades - but I reckon a lot of that was by virtue of an owner who was eager to dispose of the club as it was proving a long term drain on their personal wealth rather than any commercial ingenuity on their part.

2) I do believe that the current business model isn't really the problem here, the problem is more to do with the personnel involved and the decisions that are being made by them are leaving people uninspired and disenfranchised, and in some cases fucking outraged.  This isn't how 'fan ownership' should be, and its not my fault that I see it whilst you dont.

1) Of course the success of MCT had a lot to do with the interest of the owner to offload the club. In order for the club to be handed over to the fans though, a credible umbrella group for the fans had to be created though. The completely discredited Supporters Trust was never going to fulfil that requirement.

MCT didn't actually require 'commercial ingenuity' to do that. Instead, they needed to identify a credible long-term goal (securing a significant fan stake in and if possible, fan ownership of the club) that could attract a large portion of the fanbase's support. Meanwhile you were deriding it as an "everybudy chips in munny" scheme, when in reality the exchange of contributions for debt reduction and a stake in the club served as the template for the final takeover deal. 

2) I share many of your complaints about the decisions currently being made, as well as the opaque nature of the leadership and the club/MCT buckpassing. That requires change but there's no point throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. All directors should be up for selection on a regular basis - their decisions and voting record should be as transparent as possible. And the fanbase will put pressure on the club outside of this process regardless. 

I'm not sure what alternative model of 'fan ownership' - at a credible football club, not a 'you pick the team' Walter Mitty club - provides more than that degree of scrutiny on an everyday basis. 

[9 Strathblane Crescent]

I have a question for MCT. Why is Crawford Rae listed as a director of GMFC Property Ltd?

[Guest capitanus]

11 hours ago, vikingTON said:

1) Of course the success of MCT had a lot to do with the interest of the owner to offload the club. In order for the club to be handed over to the fans though, a credible umbrella group for the fans had to be created though. The completely discredited Supporters Trust was never going to fulfil that requirement.

MCT didn't actually require 'commercial ingenuity' to do that. Instead, they needed to identify a credible long-term goal (securing a significant fan stake in and if possible, fan ownership of the club) that could attract a large portion of the fanbase's support. Meanwhile you were deriding it as an "everybudy chips in munny" scheme, when in reality the exchange of contributions for debt reduction and a stake in the club served as the template for the final takeover deal. 

2) I share many of your complaints about the decisions currently being made, as well as the opaque nature of the leadership and the club/MCT buckpassing. That requires change but there's no point throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. All directors should be up for selection on a regular basis - their decisions and voting record should be as transparent as possible. And the fanbase will put pressure on the club outside of this process regardless. 

I'm not sure what alternative model of 'fan ownership' - at a credible football club, not a 'you pick the team' Walter Mitty club - provides more than that degree of scrutiny on an everyday basis. 

1) I think that your version of events is a tad more than revisionist, to say the least.  Yes, as i said before, that I was probably more critical than most about MCT, and I did use phrases like 'harebrained', 'back of fag packet idea' and 'ivry buddy chips in munny' to describe the scheme, and as I said previously I don't have any regrets about this.  You were also sceptical about it too, I recall you saying something along the lines of 'being well intentioned doesnt give you a free pass with £x00k of supporters money' and you were also vocal about the initial MCT proposal served maintaining the status quo rather than bringing about regime change.  The truth is there was no blueprint when Graham McLennan was hawking himself and his idea around all of those media outlets in a blaze of self publicity, a lot of the early ramblings from him amounted exactly to my summation.

A lot of the early press reports seemed very sketchy in their understanding of what the proposed scheme was, how it was going to work, a lot of the former players wheeled out to give their ringing endorsements didn't seem to understand it either but nonetheless hundreds signed up and gave their bank details and pledges - and it was all because they wanted to help the club.   Its worth stating at this juncture that not many, if any, amongst the support knew those responsible for setting up MCT before Graham McLennan announced his idea, yet hundreds trusted him with their bank details - including yourself.  Next time you want to have a chuckle about Hamilton and the Nigerian scammers, just think of this.

GMST was a toxic organisation which self imploded as a result of personalities, egos, bad leadership and the fallout of the Stars of 79 night.  And it was probably just as well it did, because in their rush to get rid of the club in the advent of the pandemic, if there was no MCT around then the lesser Raes could have just as easily passed the baton onto them and the outcome could have been far worse than what we've got today. 

A good friend of ours persuaded me to give MCT a fair chance and in deference to him I agreed.  It is also worth noting that I was told by more than one person involved in MCT at the time who said that the points I made in my criticism were all valid.  

2)  I'm really not too worried as much as others about things like Gus McPherson being in charge, how the communications are being run, the website etc. however the one thing that MCT are failing time and time again is the elephant in the room - the club have signed a convicted sex offender and they are refusing to acknowledge it.  Someone like that should be nowhere near our club, regardless of how good/bad a player he may be.   This doesn't sit right with many in our support and its not going to go away any time soon.  There was no questions asked or aswered about it at the farcical Q and A, why was that?

[BishopBrennan]

7 hours ago, capitanus said:

2)  I'm really not too worried as much as others about things like Gus McPherson being in charge, how the communications are being run, the website etc. however the one thing that MCT are failing time and time again is the elephant in the room - the club have signed a convicted sex offender and they are refusing to acknowledge it.  Someone like that should be nowhere near our club, regardless of how good/bad a player he may be.   This doesn't sit right with many in our support and its not going to go away any time soon.  There was no questions asked or aswered about it at the farcical Q and A, why was that?

I know of at least one person who submitted a question related to the Lithgow signing.