Morton Club Together Updates

[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.

[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? 

[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?

[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.

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, capitanus said:

1) 

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. 

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?

1) Well no they couldn't, because without a substantial funding base from the membership, there would not have been the opportunity for the Raes to hand over the club to a fan ownership group. The viability of an umbrella fan group was an essential precondition to a takeover bid: GMST did not have this. 

If we had followed your cynicism above all else attitude, then we'd actually have had the GMST gormlessly 'representing' the fans from the sidelines, as GC flogged the club to the highest private bidder. And then we'd have absolutely no say in what happens to the club at all. 

2) It's only the 'elephant in the room' to you and a section of the fanbase. There are many others in the fanbase who believe that the elephant in the room is in fact the useless manager, who you preach unlimited respect for based on his performance at this level fifteen years ago. So when it comes to the failures of MCT, there are as many divergent views on that topic as any other within the fanbase. 

[MCT Team]

22 hours ago, 9 Strathblane Crescent said:

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

This is in the process of being changed. 

[TONofmemories]

9 hours ago, MCT Team said:

This is in the process of being changed. 

Interested to know if the feedback above, and elsewhere, RE. The Q&A, or lack of, is being monitored and taken onboard. Youll note this isn't just a few folk on a dark corner of the Internet disappointed with the Q&A, its a mass discontent. Since it went live it has largely been lambasted. I'm sure thats disappointing for MCT. What plans are in place to address a clear fraction between MCT and the fans?

[Toby]

I’m surprised to see no mention of the decision not to appoint a chairman to the board, but to take turns in who has the deciding vote at boardroom level- what an absolute farce.

I’ve made it clear in the last few months that I’m concerned about the lack of accountability in the running of the club, and this policy goes no way in easing those concerns. A display of leadership and a preparation to be held individually accountable when things go to shit would go some way to easing those concerns, but am I surprised by the musical chairs policy? Nope, not in the slightest. This strikes me as the board operating a protection racket to look after themselves. The younger guys have something nice for a CV and the old guard can tell their acquaintances up the golf club/bowling club/lodge that they’re the director of a football club to impress them, whilst not actually having to face up to the rank and file- unless of course the questions are collated and vetted by the SLO, and the tricky ones filed away in the nearest bin.

It is of course no surprise that the person I believe to be the main organ grinder; Mr. Ritchie, was nowhere to be seen on the video- the cynic in me would suggest a Warren Hawke-style holiday or sickie from him when the club’s AGM comes around. We’re more likely to see Lord Lucan crossing into the box for Maddie McCann to head in the winner at Hampden in May than we are to get answers off of him.

There’s been a lot of hilarity about the farcical events at Falkirk’s Q&A the other week, but let’s not kid ourselves, Morton’s current board simply would not put themselves in the position to be lambasted by their support the way the Falkirk lot did. Yes, they came out of it looking foolish, but at the moment, our own board are coming across as self-serving cowards who aren’t prepared to take the rough with the smooth. I’m not sure what’s worse.

[SpoonTon]

I didn't get around to watching the Q&A until yesterday, which probably shows what my expectations were for it - and I got pretty much what I expected. 

I have to say, never, ever say that your aim is 8th (especially for a club who are so established at this level). Build, consolidate, progress, improve - there are other ways of putting your aims which come across much better. The aim of the club should very much be to push up as high up the table as possible and look to build a better squad - maybe that means accepting 8th at the end of this season, maybe it doesn't. I don't think many would be satisfied with that. 

The word 'stability' was the word I expected with reference to the two year deal - I still suspect that Gus himself was able to convince them on that one. Dunning has already explained exactly why it's just so wrongheaded. I tend to think if they wanted stability, in that sense, then they could have appointed a director of football and then a head coach. A sense of stability and continuity can be built through having a solid structure at the club, and members of staff who are there for the long term. You can't build stability by giving a long term deal to such a pivotal role which is always going to be the biggest single thing that can be changed if things go wrong. To give both MacPherson and Millen two years deals isn't the way to build stability. I mean, 'To give the club stability and experience as we transition into community ownership' - then appoint a director of football on a two year deal, appoint a head coach, and come up with a plan for affording other coaches around that. Don't focus everything on a manager and his assistant.

It does make me feel that there aren't enough good footballing heads around the board. It's one thing to want expertise in other fields in the hope of skill transferability, but I doubt any lawyer would want a car salesman as his new partner at a law firm, even if he is very successful at his own job. I think something which is frustrating fans is that feeling that they don't really understand football well enough. Which they may feel is harsh, and rightly point out that most other fans don't either, but they need to improve quickly on that one. 

As I've said before, I'm very willing to be patient as they grow into this - but I do hope that they are humble and honest enough to address mistakes and improve the way in which they are doing things. 

[MCT Team]

18 hours ago, TONofmemories said:

Interested to know if the feedback above, and elsewhere, RE. The Q&A, or lack of, is being monitored and taken onboard. Youll note this isn't just a few folk on a dark corner of the Internet disappointed with the Q&A, its a mass discontent. Since it went live it has largely been lambasted. I'm sure thats disappointing for MCT. What plans are in place to address a clear fraction between MCT and the fans?

Hi there, since I was appointed onto the MCT board and started to post regularly on the forums to respond to fans I’ve said that everything said on here is seen, taken into account and forwarded onto the relevant parties, whether MCT board or club board. That will always continue, no matter the topic. It’s difficult to keep up at times and reply to everything but please rest assured it’s being seen and raised. 

On another point, we’ve seen the reaction since the club board Q&A and we’re already working on putting plans in place to have in-person events to be able to meet fans. We’ll share details on those when they’re finalised. 

[capitanus]

49 minutes ago, MCT Team said:

Hi there, since I was appointed onto the MCT board and started to post regularly on the forums to respond to fans I’ve said that everything said on here is seen, taken into account and forwarded onto the relevant parties, whether MCT board or club board. That will always continue, no matter the topic. It’s difficult to keep up at times and reply to everything but please rest assured it’s being seen and raised. 

On another point, we’ve seen the reaction since the club board Q&A and we’re already working on putting plans in place to have in-person events to be able to meet fans. We’ll share details on those when they’re finalised. 

Is that why you have failed to acknowledge the fact that there is a sizeable element of the support dont want our football club to be associated with a convicted sex offender?

It wont go away, regardless of whether or not you think i'm merely a trouble-maker or whether Mr Ritchie has warned you not to reply to me.

 

[capitanus]

9 hours ago, Toby said:

I’m surprised to see no mention of the decision not to appoint a chairman to the board, but to take turns in who has the deciding vote at boardroom level- what an absolute farce.

I’ve made it clear in the last few months that I’m concerned about the lack of accountability in the running of the club, and this policy goes no way in easing those concerns. A display of leadership and a preparation to be held individually accountable when things go to shit would go some way to easing those concerns, but am I surprised by the musical chairs policy? Nope, not in the slightest. This strikes me as the board operating a protection racket to look after themselves. The younger guys have something nice for a CV and the old guard can tell their acquaintances up the golf club/bowling club/lodge that they’re the director of a football club to impress them, whilst not actually having to face up to the rank and file- unless of course the questions are collated and vetted by the SLO, and the tricky ones filed away in the nearest bin.

It is of course no surprise that the person I believe to be the main organ grinder; Mr. Ritchie, was nowhere to be seen on the video- the cynic in me would suggest a Warren Hawke-style holiday or sickie from him when the club’s AGM comes around. We’re more likely to see Lord Lucan crossing into the box for Maddie McCann to head in the winner at Hampden in May than we are to get answers off of him.

There’s been a lot of hilarity about the farcical events at Falkirk’s Q&A the other week, but let’s not kid ourselves, Morton’s current board simply would not put themselves in the position to be lambasted by their support the way the Falkirk lot did. Yes, they came out of it looking foolish, but at the moment, our own board are coming across as self-serving cowards who aren’t prepared to take the rough with the smooth. I’m not sure what’s worse.

Dare I say it, as much as they seem to be a club in disarray nowadays, the Falkirk board doesnt come across as anything near as spineless as this current shower in charge at Morton.  I wasnt aware about this 'lack of chairman' fiasco, but it doesnt surprise me.  This lot need emptied, but i've a funny feeling they're going to make it difficult to remove them.

 

[Alibi]

14 hours ago, capitanus said:

Dare I say it, as much as they seem to be a club in disarray nowadays, the Falkirk board doesnt come across as anything near as spineless as this current shower in charge at Morton.  I wasnt aware about this 'lack of chairman' fiasco, but it doesnt surprise me.  This lot need emptied, but i've a funny feeling they're going to make it difficult to remove them.

 

I don’t think I know any of the MCT board members, but already some folk seem to be looking to replace them. I think that might be a bit premature as they have hardly been in post for long. What we as de facto shareholders must have however is regular reporting of what is being decided and why. Annually the board should stand for re-election and anyone who has not contributed anything to the efficient running of the business can be voted out. The club is now in effect owned by about 1000 people, and if it improves things, any one of them should be able to be voted on to the board. We don’t want a self serving clique who make all the decisions and have no accountability - that should have stopped with the departure of the Raes.

[CM48]

Frustrating as it is for the team on the park to have been pish for what seems like forever there's a lot of people on here who seem convinced that changing the manager / new board / everything / really would fix it. Let's say we do go looking for a director of football who do we get? Someone who's got a lot of experience and managed fairly successfully at a higher level, perhaps keeping a small team in the top flight? Like Gary Holt? Or maybe even all the way to international level, like Craig Levein? What would Hearts and Falkirk fans opinions be on them? Duffy? Worked so well at Ayr that Hoppy's already away and Jim's having to take the team.

Also, if we get rid of the new board, who's taking that on? Does anyone on here know of people with footballing backgrounds and board level experience knocking on the doors at Cappielow and asking to join in? Especially when your reward is people who are unwilling or unable to do it themselves telling you where you're going wrong and how to fix it? Not saying you shouldn't expect criticism, just saying who wants that in their life? The Q+A wasn't great (being kind) but at least they tried something. If they all chucked it tomorrow then...I genuinely don't know what would happen.

I listened to Cornetto there, which I enjoy, but thought it was a bit funny that they were handing out pelters left right and centre about various inept performances at the club in between silences from 1 of only 3 contributors. I mean how hard is it to check that 33% of your podcast is missing before telling the world it's a "must listen"? 

I've done some work for the club over the last few years on a voluntary basis and had dealings with 2 chief execs and the new general manager as well as Crawford and a few of the new MCT team now on the board and Gus. None of them (ok, maybe one) seemed concerned about themselves over what was good for the club.

Everyone seems to think that relegation is the apocalypse. Of course I don't want us to go down, but what's more important is that there's always a club there to support and I can't help thinking the more we hound out people who are willing to actually try and take things on on behalf of the supporters, the worse the caliber of those who then take over will be. Again, Cornetto were already coming out with "At least when the Raes were there..." stuff this week. Do I think Dean and co. should go because of the silent gaps and that I don't agree with some of their content? Absolutely not, it's obvious they're passionate about the club and that's both brilliant and the most important thing by a mile. It's why I listen and enjoy it so much.

And again, not saying it's fun being pish and 2nd bottom of the league, but surely the fact the new directors and staff in place are passionate enough about the club to put the time in to get involved in running it all is the most important thing? MCT getting the amount of people to sign up is a brilliant achievement. Lessons on how to not be so bad at answering fans questions will have be learnt along the way as I don't see who or what the alternative is? Saudis? Easdales? Anyone on here?

It might be over 20 years ago now but since liquidation I just want the club to always be there. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's enjoyed great times (and shite) following Morton in every league they've played in since I was a kid. And despite now many fans unease and disappointment in the running of the club this season, along with results on the park, I still feel the club won't go down the toilet and I'll always be able to and watch a Morton team playing at Cappielow. And I know it's a (very) long shot, but we could be 6th by Saturday evening. (Too much?)

 

[TheGoon]

Comparing an audio glitch on a fan podcast with the thousands of pounds spunked up the wall on a gubbins football manager, that is currently steering us towards relegation, is certainly something.

[CM48]

Ha, thanks. Massive rant shot down in 2 lines. I'll try again in another 6 months.