Leaderboard

Some positive news amongst the chaos, Sam Murdoch is called up to a Scotland under-19s camp. First Morton player to be called up at any age level for almost 10 years. Well done him, very well deserved.

I think the hounding of Dalrada is massively premature. We don't know what the terms of their agreement are and we don't know what demands, if any, they have made. Their only public statements so far have been 100% positive. IF it turns out that they're trying to hold the majority shareholder to ransom then obviously that's a problem but right now we've only heard, officially, from one side. The implication from that side is that they're trying to resolve it, trying to find a middle ground. I believe that Dalrada deserve the chance to demonstrate a similar commitment before they're written off, and that includes their stance - whatever it might be - on board members etc. Frankly speaking though, they're a sponsor. They're not corporate stewards of the club. I don't think they owe a statement. I do think, however, that the GMFC Board owes a statement at this point. The embargo was already a sign that standards were slipping, and this is even more grave than that. They need to clarify the communication lines with the major shareholder of the club - namely, us fans (those of us who are paid up MCT members at least) - and explain why the embargo was swept under the carpet. I want fan ownership to succeed and I want each member of the board to succeed. I don't think there needs to be a statement every time someone coughs at Cappielow. I don't think we need to air dirty laundry in public all the time. But this current situation needs far more clarity than it has, and for me that's down to the GMFC board failing to remember its duty to its major shareholder.

I get it, but we’d also moan like fuck if they never put them on sale. I’ll get one as usual. You all will too. And we’ll be miserable about it. We go again.

I've just submitted this rather large list of questions to MCT. I'm assuming they will collate questions and answer them at the meeting. Dalrada: Should Dalrada continue their history of missed/late payments to GMFC, what protections are GMFC implementing to protect the club’s financial wellbeing? If Dalrada miss or default on payment(s), will the number of Dalrada board members on the GMFC board be reduced? If not, why not? What failsafe measures have MCT discussed should the proposal be rejected by the membership? Why, and by who, was it decided that a written summary of the proposed agreement sent to the membership, rather than the proposed deal in its entirety? Will a full version of the agreement (redacted where necessary to protect sensitive data) be sent to the membership? If not, why not? It is stated within the email that the agreement, should it be successful, will be reviewed in twelve months time. Given the proportion of the club’s income that comes from Dalrada, could this review begin in February 2026 instead, with the aim of having a final decision by May 2026 instead? Whilst we cannot guarantee which league we would be playing in for the following season, and some additional caveats may need to be inserted into any proposed agreement, this would give the men’s first team manager a more definitive idea of the budget for the season ahead, allowing squad building to begin as soon as possible. GMFC Chairman: Is or has John Laird ever been a member of MCT? Has John Laird invested any money in the Club or MCT? Has John Laird been registered as a director of GMFC with Companies House? If not, why not? Over the last twelve months, how many MCT board meetings has John Laird attended? Does John Laird currently have any financial interest in any footballing companies, including coaching, scouting and agency organisations? If so, what mechanisms have the GMFC board put in place to prevent conflicts of interest from arising? If there are none, why is this the case? What mechanisms are in place to allow the MCT membership, the clubs owners, to remove a Chairman should they be unhappy with their leadership? MCT Reps on the GMFC Board: Given a clear failure in communication and governance, and a clear breach of the memberships’ trust by both Graham Barr and Sam Robinson, what is the justification for the interim MCT board being ‘happy’ for both named individuals to continue in their role? What is the justification for MCT directors who have previously resigned from their posts making such an important decision without allowing a vote of the membership to inform their decision? Have Graham Barr or Sam Robinson offered any explanation or apology for their actions in hiding vital information from both the club’s owners and the men’s first team manager? What assurances have the interim board sought from Graham and Sam regarding their future conduct and responsibilities towards all MCT members? What are the mechanisms by which MCT members can remove representatives should their conduct fall below an acceptable standard? Given recent developments, and the subsequent impact upon the trust the fanbase have in MCT as an organisation, and the representation the membership have on the GMFC board, would this be a prudent opportunity to start recording minutes from discussions held at MCT and GMFC board meetings? Obviously, certain information would need to be redacted, but this could go a long way to improving the transparency and integrity of our elected representatives. If this is not possible, why not?

Former GMFC and MCT director Gordon Ritchie has asked me to post the following statement on his behalf - If you are named in this statement and wish the right to reply, please contact me directly. Thanks, Dean.

Gordon has put his name to his posts - will you do the same when making allegations about him? Regardless of how true or otherwise your allegations are, they do not address either the situation we currently face, or any of the points he raised so forgive me for thinking it is coming across as whataboutery & a cheap attempt to discredit one of the only people who appear at this stage to be sharing information with the fans in good faith.

“Since day one, Dalrada have never asked for anything in return for their contribution.” Aren’t they on our shirts the team wear at Cappielow supported by Dalrada? “The only condition Dalrada have placed on the deal is for the governance of the football club to improve.“ Aren't they now asking for members in the board and directors who have overseen the recent shambles to stay in the board alongside their chosen chairman? Big improvement? “In addition, it is stated representatives should carry out a project beneficial to the club before being appointed.” What did Graham Barr do? “The above would of course require a slight change to the GMFC Articles which state MCT reps should always be the majority on the Board. It is also worth adding that the interim MCT Board are happy to continue with Sam and Graham as MCT representatives.” Why are they happy for them to continue. Because of their communication skills? I must have missed their replies to Gordon Ritchie’s statement. The rest is just word salad about being pragmatic and best thing all round etc. It’s a big NO from me and I’d class myself usually as a bit of a fence sitter. To me it’s totally unacceptable and a slippery slope to being the next ICT or Hamilton I reckon. It feels like anyone who had the best intentions for MCT and Morton has left and those who have caused all this shite by their incompetence and self entitlement want to keep control.

Absolutely shocking stuff here. Of all the information that’s come out so far, I trust Gordon above the other sources so this is deeply concerning to say the least. I note with interest that Gordon’s statement mentions that he has spoken to the tele and shared evidence that the timelines claimed by the club are inaccurate. This is a big opportunity for the tele to show that they are worth their salt by doing some proper journalism as opposed to being a mouthpiece for unnamed “sources”. If (as seems to be the case) this is some sort of hostile power grab to seize control of the club, then personally I would prefer to tell Dalrada, Laird, Dale & their cohorts to do one. Even if it means part-time football.

I asked the MCT board to permit some time for a counter argument to this proposal to be submitted. My request was not even acknowledged. We are racing headlong into a situation where members lose control of the club due to the MCT board blindly accepting the word of their mates on the GMFC board. I know from my time on the board that there is more going on than we are being told, but due to confidentiality laws I cannot discuss these things publicly (Stuart Duncan take note) but in my resignation email in March 2024 I warned that Laird was determined to grab the club from MCT ownership. One thing I can say, and which I announced at an AGM, is that the original deal with Dalrada was for 6 years. I don’t know if someone renegotiated that deal (and, if so, why) but there is no mention of that in the propoganda distributed by the MCT board. At the present time, I am ashamed to be associated with MCT and a series of directors who have no idea how to properly run a company. Finally, many thanks to those posters who wished me well in my recovery from health issues.

I don't really have a huge issue with this. If there's a sponsor who's willing to be on the board and bring in some corporate experience then there's no real issue. The problem is if they start to interfere with decisions and act in their own interest. We've only got a small pool of supporters for the board so it needs supplemented by external people. I've also seen a few people query the two board setup. I don't think that's an issue in itself and (from memory) the articles of association for both are well intended. Again, the problem is if people act in their own interest. The GMFC board should be a majority of MCT representatives and the MCT board should be able to remove or change these members going by these articles. Since the MCT board are representing the members then it should allow members to force change via the MCT board. What's happened here is that the MCT board weren't happy with their representatives and tried to remove them but they refused to leave and went running to the sponsor. Whether the comms or way of telling them could have been improved is another story but the structure should work in theory. Just because Dalrada have a board seat shouldn't mean they have the deciding vote - it's majority MCT and the MCT people on it should answer to the MCT board (and therfore members) rather than act in their own interest.

Let's hope that this can all be resolved asap and we can begin to plan ahead for next season. So much uncertainty already with Dougie and now Millen. Add to that the players out of contract and now the boardroom drama. A plea to anyone involved on this debacle regardless of involvement with MCT, The Board and Dalrada. Swallow your pride, get round the table and put the best interests of the club and the fans first.

I'm on the way home from Bonnyrigg v East Kilbride (worst pyramid playoff ever btw) so in no position to digest the finer points, but my initial gut reaction is that I don't in principle necessarily object to MCT reps not having a majority on the GMFC board. I absolutely object to MCT's control of the board being diluted and the MCT reps continuing to be Sam Robinson and Graham Barr. Events have proven that they are in reality Dalrada reps; if we allow a situation where we have 2 Dalrada reps, 2 MCT reps and 3 reps appointed by those 4, then if Robinson and Barr are the supposed MCT board members what we'll actually have is 7 Dalrada representatives. At the very minimum this needs to involve real MCT reps rather than those two, who have proven they can't be trusted.

I don’t remember being the greatest fan of Gordon Ritchie during his time running the club (although I had heard he was the only one in the building doing anything) but I’m glad someone with direct knowledge and the sort of standing to at least be listened to by fans and not treated as ITK whispers has come out and explained parts of what has been doing the rounds among groups of fans and those within every level at the club, that the club has been a toxic shambles behind the scenes for a while under the current stewardship and the success of Dougie Imrie, Andy Millen and the players have papered over a lot of cracks that have covered for proper scrutiny on those who run the club. I’m glad Ritchie’s diagnosis has been downgraded and wish his full health going forward.

Assuming the above post can be taken at face value, it's absolutely damning. I'm not that bothered about the part where he was working 70 hour weeks because that's a choice, but the part where the club knew fine well there were business-critical emails coming through a blocked account and completely failed to act on it is negligent to a degree that can't be exaggerated. (Again, assuming face value.) I am glad Ritchie's condition has been downgraded and I hope for his continued good health, regardless of what happens.

So as well as this extremely brief non-update which has the club looking like it's further lacking in transparency on top of the issues raised in the MCT statement, we also had Tom Tracey confirming his own resignation from the MCT board via the Tele. Before getting to the content I think there's a pertinent criticism of MCT that they didn't confirm the rumours that some of their own board had resigned in their own statement. Their own transparency is also under scrutiny here. https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/25148258.tom-tracey-plea-forget-egos-take-morton-forward/ Having taken everything in the MCT statement at face value I'll do the same here. It's clear from this that not everyone on the MCT board felt calling for resignations of their representatives after finding out they'd failed to communicate the embargo was the right thing to do, and thought they could continue to work on improving the processes of communication without getting to that point. That could be a valid criticism that if calmer heads had prevailed and they didn't go for the option of removing their representatives it didn't need to come to this stand-off with the boards seemingly at war, Dalrada potentially walking and the manager and players being left in limbo for planning for next season. Into the realm of opinion rather than fact now but as we now have people with different opinions not disputing the central issue - the GMFC board including Robinson and Barr knew about the embargo and the MCT board didn't - that fact could lead you down either road. There's the road the remaining MCT board members are seemingly taking, we've been working to improve our communication and accountability, you have completely undermined that effort by not telling us about this so the MCT reps on the GMFC board have lost our trust and have to go. Then there's what appears to be Tom Tracey's stance here, that we've been working to improve our communication and accountability, that evidently hasn't improved, we need to carry on working on that process with the people still in place to find out why and fix it. Those are both entirely defensible positions to take which can be an honest difference of opinion on the right approach. I do think there's an elephant in the room we can't escape here though. Tracey opens with "family reasons" as the cause of his resignation but then goes into a description of the MCT board's actions that forced him to think his resignation was the only option, describing one of those actions as "the last straw". So evidently not family reasons in the way people usually use the term then, this isn't wanting to spend more time with family or another personal reason - he's gone because he disagrees with the actions of other MCT board members. He's also spot on about people forgetting egos and working together to find a way through this, this shouldn't be about anything other than what's best for Morton and personalities and egos shouldn't come into it, so I'm loath to bring up anything other than the material facts of what both boards have done and what needs to be done to resolve it. When he's raised family reasons himself though before listing several complaints with how the MCT board have acted in trying to remove two GMFC directors, I don't think we can avoid at least questioning the relevance of the fact that one of those directors is his own son-in-law. Maybe he would still be saying the same thing regardless and fair enough if so - other MCT directors are rumoured to have resigned who don't have family ties to anyone on the GMFC board - but it's a pretty glaring potential conflict of interest here that is naturally likely to incline him towards a kinder view of Graham Barr's actions. When he's quite rightly called for people to put aside their own egos for the good of Morton, implying that others are only acting on their self-interest just now, it's fair to ask if he's doing the same considering that link.

The exact meaning of this passage is important - The board of MCT has subsequently been notified officially that the continued backing of GMFC sponsors Dalrada is dependent on those representatives, and the current club chair, remaining on the board at Cappielow. Officially notified by whom - the GMFC board or Dalrada? If it’s the former then (assuming the MCT version of events is true), it needs to at least be taken with a pinch of salt. If on the other hand it is definitely coming from Dalrada (as opposed to an empty threat being raised in an attempt to maintain power) then there needs to be an effort to make sure they understand the reasons behind the proposed removal of Barr & Robinson, and discussions to try and align all 3 parties in a way that allows the sponsorship to continue without compromising fully accountable MCT representation on the board.

It was always likely to play out this way from time to time, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that so-called professional business partners don't throw toys out of the pram and brief their big mates with 'ITK information' too. Just look at thr situation unfolding at Hamilton and Queens' Park within the same division. As a voting member and nothing more than that, the conclusion I am drawing from all this speculative shite is to uniformly vote down any candidate - either to the MCT or GMFC board - who is founc to be gaslighting the fanbase about 'the club folding' or any other nonsense to make a case. State your position and arguments in good faith, and support key claims with evidence. If not, then your airing of supposed dirty linen in public does nothing but harm to the club's relationship with external suppliers, Smiths etc.

It doesn't provide certainty for a year when the backer responsible has failed to provide certainty from month to month in meeting its existing commitments. As for the first point, you seem to be assuming that the 'proposal' is the only show in town. If Dalrada are as genuinely committed to community ownership as their most recent public announcements state, then why would rejecting this additional proposal require pulling the plug on existing sponsorship? In what way is it supporting community ownership if you pick up your ball and go home if you don't get everything your own way? What is the inherent issue with maintaining the status quo degree of attachment? The last time that a company tried a take it or leave it approach, it was GC trying to take Cappielow as payment for 'our' (their) spending. This was also presented at the time as being in the best interests of the club and with no better offer on the table. It wasn't and a better solution was found. That doesn't mean that we should automatically adopt the same stance - it does however mean that we should treat the nature of the proposal itself with scepticism. And if Dalrada aren't for negotiating, then it's best to have the plug pulled now rather than being £2 million deep into the clutches of an organisation again. Crowd sizes are irrelevant compared to the stakes involved here.

Also we have far bigger fish to fry than who's in the dugout, we have to think long-term here and if doing the right thing for Morton's long-term future here tanks one season and essentially guarantees relegation then so be it, but this playing out at this time of year is deeply regrettable (and incidentally is another reason not to trust Dalrada and the GMFC Board for manufacturing this mess of high pressure timing when it could have been proposed months ago). As per the email the vote is going to close on 5 June. Even if things go so swimmingly that this allows the manager to be given his budget and crack on with finally building his squad on 6 June, that is over a month after the season has ended. It's outrageous to put a manager in this position, and even if he's not going to get an offer of another job and move to a more stable club I don't think anyone could blame Imrie if he decides to chuck it rather than being tainted by association with this clusterfuck.

Couldn't agree more and it's worth stressing that there is no actual fait accompli: • The biggest outgoing at a football club is the first team wage bill - that's to a significant degree a variable cost. • The club has no long-term debt to account for. • There should therefore be sufficient room in terms of expired contracts to absorb any loss of revenue from a single sponsor. If not, then GMFC is further mismanaging its resources. I frankly couldn't care less at this point about the first team's strength going forward. It should be nowhere near top of the priority list. If this past fortnight is serving as the prelude to a form of bad faith takeover then that has to be rejected first and foremost. For those who may (understandably) disagree with that emphasis - take a look at Hamilton to see what happens when your 'ambitious' first team goals meet the reality of actually signing over your club to a bunch of bad faith chancers. I look forward to seeing the details of the proposal, but can't hide the reality that my prejudgement has swung to at least 40-60 against just about any deeper involvement with Dalrada after the past few weeks.

Thought we all might need cheering up a little... BG Ha3.mp4

Great post. My view on this - and where I think there are genuine grounds for passionate disagreement - is that *if true*, then Dalrada nor any other sponsor should not have any effective veto over the club board's composition. A sponsor is not an owner. Now, the owners may wish to promote effective links between a sponsor and the club, but we also might not want to piss off our excellent manager by giving a letter to his assistant 0.2 seconds after the final game too. In either case, what might be the most sensible judgment does not change what the actual lines of authority and accountability should be. There was a GMFC for fully 140-odd years prior to Dalrada's involvement. There must be a GMFC after Dalrada's involvement. I personally hope that the space in between will be quite long and productive, but the tail cannot be wagging the dog.

The last time we were forced in to pleasing a sponsor we ended up with Alexander Easdale starting up front.

The board of MCT has subsequently been notified officially that the continued backing of GMFC sponsors Dalrada is dependent on those representatives, and the current club chair, remaining on the board at Cappielow. Get this in the fucking bin.

I have nothing to hide here. I said in the statement that Dean kindly posted on my behalf that I remain in dispute with MCT and the Morton board. When I was asked to take on the role of ceo, I was offered payment for the role. After discussion with the MCT board, an agreement was reached as a result of which I would not be paid. I resigned from my legal practice to work full time at Morton. MCT breached that agreement. They asked me to resign from the Morton board. To this day, I have not been told why I was asked to resign nor given the opportunity to tell them my account of events. I was simply asked to resign. Compare my actions in resigning with those of Barr and Robinson. When they were asked to resign, they clung on to “power” and all sorts of rumours were leaked to the press. MCT also terminated my membership when I was asked to resign. This was unjust and outwith their articles, and I instructed solicitors to remedy this. MCT had not engaged, but when they took legal advice my membership of MCT was restored. They claimed it was a “badly worded email”. I have recently asked them to remove my name and image from their publicity material as they were maintaining that I was still an MCT rep on the Morton board. Given the shambles that was happening at the club, I could not afford to have my reputation damaged by association with events at Cappielow. To this day they have not removed that information, and I may have to go to court to force the issue. As for the gym equipment, you are mistaken. When I started working at Cappielow, the gym was a disgrace. The flooring was unsuitable and had become dangerous. The equipment was unsafe for professional athletes. One of my companies paid for new flooring (it was done anonymously as I didn’t seek recognition for this until you chose to attack me with lies). I LOANED several thousand pounds worth of gym equipment from my own gym to the club. Once I and a couple of others had laid the flooring, the loaned equipment was installed. I was also able to secure free and cheap gym equipment from some of my contacts in the fitness business. The gym, which was in a laughable state when I started, was now a fully functioning facility praised by all who saw it. When it became clear that I was leaving the club, I asked for the return of my equipment. It took weeks for the stuff to be returned, and the club tried to fob me off with rusty old stuff rather than the nearly new items I had loaned, but eventually it was returned to me.

Another anonymous new poster doesn't help matters.

Says they wrote to us, thank fuck they didn’t email.

Let me get this right the members are being invited, with indecent haste, to vote on a proposal that looks to be a stitch-up, rewarding the people who previously promoted transparency and accountability but now shy away from scrutiny. We are in this mess because of they very same people who want to remain in-situ - madness! Don't get me wrong, I do not want all this uncertainty and the possibility of our main sponsor walking away but being invited to vote for the future of the club with a gun to our head is not the way forward.

Tell me Stuart Duncan isn't on and off the MCT board like a yoyo to satisfy his own ego. Tell me we have someone waiting in the wings to replace Dalrada as our major sponsor if the MCT membership say no to the deal. Tell me we are not handing proxy control of the club to a third party with no oversight or safeguards for eternity. Tell me the GMFC board who oversaw gross incompetence, of both the transfer embargo and far more importantly having no sponsorship & therefore no budget for next season lined up weeks after the season ended, aren't willing to destroy the club to save their own skins. Tell me the MCT board will release the full text of the proposed agreement with Dalrada so the MCT membership can have the slightest clue what's going on and make an informed vote. Tell me when the MCT board will explain and justify their continued confidence in Sam Robinson and Graham Barr. Tell me if Stuart Duncan will resign if there's no Plan B, or if Plan A itself jeopardises the club?

The term 'flooding the zone' is sometimes used to try and explain the Trump White House's near constant barrage of announcements and briefings since the start of the year, with the claimed purpose being that while the media and opposition are still trying to grasp and/or organise opposition to the last batshit mental scheme, a new one will be dropped to divert attention away. All while the executive branch makes decisions with real-world impacts under very little scrutiny. Now I don't follow US politics closely enough to judge whether that's accurate, but It's certainly the suspicion I have when an enormous update gets dropped on a Saturday teatime. Even on a self-contained forum like this, it would take pages and pages of textual analysis to pull apart every single one of different claims being made in that document. Just two I'd like to flag up: 1) How noble of the interim MCT board to deem themselves satisfied that 'Sam' and 'Graham' can continue in their existing posts. Never mind 'Lettuce Liz' Truss' spell in office - I've literally had an open carton of milk sit in the fridge longer than at least one of these interim MCT board members. They have absolutely zero credibility to judge anything right now. 2) So Dalrada are only looking to develop the most professional and competent executive structure at the football club going forward. We can all surely agree on that. So that being the case, it is strange that Dalrada and their assorted flunkeys have refused to either: i) identify and hold anyone responsible for covering up a transfer embargo behind the first team manager's back - never mind the actual fucking owners of the business, or ii) account for gleefully running to give a notice letter to an assistant manager 5 minutes after the last home game of the season, noising up the same first team manager and playing squad in the process. Neither of those decisions smack of professional and competent stewardship, so which of the existing cohort of the chairman, board directors or the GM should be held responsible and leave? Actions speak louder than words - so who is for the chop? A final point is that this EGM is quite clearly not going to offer the required degree of scrutiny. The last AGM spent the best part of two hours discussing one proposed article change and the white-hot controversy of cashless pie stalls. It would need an effective and respected neutral moderator just to maintain a basic level of coherence this time given the passions stirred up on all sides, and even if that miracle happens barely the surface of this proposal will be covered in time. Until most of the questions highlighted by the contributors above are addressed then this proposal should not even be up for consideration.

No I’m in the same boat. The major concern for me is the removal of an MCT majority on the board and if that condition remains I’ll be voting no and also for the following reasons: 1. if there’s no MCT board majority following this, who is to stop Dalrada and their board picks simply voting together and extending the current deal following the initial 12 months even if we are unhappy with their performances? 2. Following the FIFA transfer embargo fiasco, why in the name of God is anyone currently involved in the board being kept on? It makes a mockery of Dalrada’s demand for improved governance and erodes any trust I have left in them. I for one will make sure I’m attending the general meeting on the 2nd of June to ask these questions, if someone else doesn’t first

It's not terrible if the intention behind more board representation is purely to ensure the club is ran more professionally and not anything more nefarious. Regardless of what the interim MCT board are happy with though, I think it would be inappropriate for Barr and Robinson to continue in their roles, given the damage they've done to trust in MCT in the first place by sitting on the FIFA ban. A clean break would be best.

Why are they so eager to put back on the board the guys who allowed to happen and then hid the transfer embargo from the MCT membership? That's the part I don't get. If they want good governance and a better board why are these guys considered the top candidates?

Went to Thorniewood v Kilbirnie Ladeside last night. Not much of a game despite a 4-2 win for the away team. More importantly, I got to see Ross Forbes play football, which was just smashing.

I’m at the stage of where all I’m worried about is avoiding a Hamilton or ICT scenario. People might scream things about “lack of ambition” or “seaside leagues” on here or commenting on every post on socials the club will put out about family sections or season tickets (which the club should be doing imo). But if we have to go part time due to Dalrada pulling out then so be it. The crowds and budgets may be smaller but full time football for well over 20 years hasn’t seen us up in the top tier so not sure what status or success we’d be giving up? I’d take MCT being in control, and having to answer to 1000 or so contributors, over any other set up, even though there will always be difficulties with turnover of those willing to try and run things. As far as the last communication from Michael Harkins (who I though came across very capable and honest) regarding the clubs finances, there would seem to still be a small surplus in the bank to help cover costs during any adjustments and losses in the coming season. Also moving to spending less doesn’t guarantee a dire relegation season, whatever team assembled could do well as Arbroath managed a few years back (bit of a freak scenario I know). At the risk of misreading the room don’t most of us just want to know that we can go to Cappielow and enjoy following the team, no matter what level? So sick of all this shite.

Yeah it's definitely one of these

I disagree because there are also structural changes that could be made to increase accountability, regardless of who sits on either board. For example: 1) Each GMFC board meeting should have full minutes recorded for future reference - board directors can scrutinise these before validation and suggest (but not enact) necessary corrections. Even something as basic as using automatic minute recording/summary, then manually correcting any errors is an improvement in terms of scrutiny on the club statement mechanism. 2. Those minutes should be made available to view upon request by the MCT board as well as any other significant shareholder. For MCT, I would establish this as a routine matter of course - but it should also be open to other non-trivial shareholders too. 3. A summary of the board minutes - not disclosing any sensitive information, effectively a list of each topic discussed - should then be made available to all stakeholders, including MCT members. 4. Other change needed: resigning from MCT should lead to a time bar on returning to said board - at least 6 months (possibly over 12) seems reasonable enough. These are just some that spring to mind - others with insider knowledge can adapt or suggest different reforms (such as the club chairman). The point being that the issues are not necessarily down to officeholders being either incompetent or nefarious - we haven't yet built a reliable enough structure for governance and accountability. It was an understandable oversight when the Raes picked up the ball and left quickly - it clearly has to be addressed now.

Pasting it here because there's a chance the site will go down due to all the interest: I'm at work so not even going to try to read and process this right now except to say that, at a personal level, I'm sorry Graham has resigned, including as an Honorary Director. Without him I shudder to think where the club would be right now.

For this specific issue, I wonder why both sides can't actually agree to have their cake and eat it; • Let those who Dalrada apparently want on the GMFC board to remain. • SO LONG AS GMFC's articles are amended to allow the addition of legit MCT delegates on the board - up to the 50% as was intended. • Clarify the responsibilities of MCT delegates to the GMFC board - as an internal issue for MCT, with no scope for anyone else sticking their oar in. There would still of course be some tensions and noses out of joint, but expanding the GMFC board is a pragmatic alternative to this War of the Roses style stand-off (apparent to the outside at least), at a critical time in the club's future planning.

If we put all this aside for a moment, this should be a big week or so of communication for the club. When are season tickets going on sale? When are new steps being announced? Which players are leaving/staying - who are being offered deals? What is the situation with Millen? What's the update on the transfer ban? What's happening with the Dalrada deal (because we can all see that things don't look amazing for them right now)? What's the latest general club update (addressing issues like pie stalls, etc.)

Tele article last night is absolutely clear that Imrie didn't know until just before the Airdrie game, when an emergency loan for Sharp wasn't possible due to the embargo. This is actually a considerably bigger issue than getting the ban in the first place. You can make the argument, though I wouldn't agree, that this is effectively all a mountain out of a molehill, it's an administrative back office mess that isn't actually having a material impact on us, it's understandable that they'd sweep it under the carpet in public in the hope fans never need to know if it's resolved quickly. I strongly disagree, but that's a case you can argue in isolation. Having the ban and not telling the manager about it for a month is however a considerably bigger issue. That is a complete betrayal of trust of the manager on the part of the off-field hierarchy, and even if this was a sole offence and there wasn't a long list of other issues concerning the General Manager's competence this alone is a sackable offence. You cannot expect the manager to have a functioning working relationship with a GM who has deliberately hidden something this serious from him, leading to the situation where the manager arranges a loan signing and has to be told nah sorry, we can't bring anyone in because we've actually had a transfer ban for a month that I hadn't bothered my arse to tell you about. A football manager cannot be expected to maintain a working relationship with a General Manager who has absolutely fucked him over that way, Dougie Imrie is far more important to this football club than Dale Pryde-MacDonald is, Dale Pryde-MacDonald therefore has to go and go now. Even if we were doing cartwheels about Pryde-MacDonald's great competence in every other aspect of his job then this would still be an immediate sackable offence by itself. That there's also a considerable list of other grievances he has directly caused or presided over in 18 months - the utter state of the queues at the turnstiles and pie stall last night are timely reminders of other issues - simply makes it all the more urgent that he's given his jotters today and isn't allowed to set foot in Cappielow again.

That's wrong. Dale was already in Andy's office - sitting on his chair, stroking a cat - when he walked in. Two unknown Morton officials then grabbed Andy from behind. The last anyone saw, Andy was shoved in the boot of a black car on Sinclair street and driven away...

Just been informed that I, too, am off to Partick next season.

I think on balance if you were judging Adeloye solely on his performances in a Morton top so far rather than prior reputation you'd lean against giving him a contract, but even with how frustrating he's been to watch at times he still has 3 goals in 6 starts and 2 sub appearances. He signed at the end of February having not had a club since the summer and spent a further month out injured after coming in, it's reasonable to look at that record and wonder what goal return he could deliver with a pre-season behind him. Even in games where he has generally been poor and the crowd have been audibly frustrated with Keay not being on in his place much earlier like the Livingston game, both freekicks Crawford had where he scored one and forced a great save from the other came from Adeloye drawing the foul. He's clearly got something and with the struggle to find a competent centre forward we had last summer, I'd rather stick with him than end up waiting until late September for a credible option there again.

It is ridiculous to ask us to vote on this proposal at such short notice when the whole thing is clouded in ifs and buts. The one thing that stands out for me is Gordon Ritchie's opinion of John Laird. That is a huge red flag - a chairman who won't join the board as it would mean being vetted by the SFA? Wow! That is excoriating. Hugh Scott levels of excoriating. Perhaps MCT should come back and recommend acceptance of Brian Bonar's offer but on condition that John Laird departs the scene. I tend to think Mr Bonar's heart is in the right place, a Morton fan who wants to help the club - that's my Euromillions fantasy writ large - but this John Laird character, who I know nothing about personally, maybe needs to consider his position.

Hi Gordon, just for transparency I don’t know you or anyone involved past or present. Thanks for your message and your earlier one. I’m minded to vote no to this, as there’s a principle at play here in terms of retaining functional control of the club and the gift we’ve inherited from the work of MCT founders and the Rae’s shouldn’t just be handed over to a third party. I also think it’s our role as supporters to be sceptical as a way to protect the club from any potential harm. Having said that, I do trust everyone involved wants Morton to be a success and I don’t necessarily think Dalrada have bad intentions if this were to be voted for. So I have a question: as you are closer to all of this, can you say what you think (a) Dalrada and (b) John Laird’s intentions are here? Appreciate you may not be able to go into detail, but any general idea of how good or otherwise the plans they have for the club are would be welcome. Finally, the only good thing to come out of this was to have read about your recovery, long may it continue.

A couple of points on company law. - Per section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, “directors must ask in a way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members (shareholders) as a whole”. - Section 175 says “directors must avoid situations where they have, or could have, a direct or indirect interest that conflicts, or may conflict, with the interests of the company. This includes conflicts arising from exploiting any property, information, or opportunity for personal benefit”. In October, 2023, John Liard was appointed chairman of the club and to this day has refused to become a company director. A truly bizarre situation. I’ve been informed that he also opted not to use a club e-mail address and instead uses a personal one for club business. As chairman of a community owned club, he allegedly refused to join MCT and pay his tenner a month. My own loose association with him dates back decades to our time together in the BB and what I can say is that while he never struck me as the community spirited type, I would guess he is quite clued up in company law. What is clear is that he has now removed every person on both the club and MCT boards who challenged him or called out his motives. He fought hard to keep Graeme Barr and Sam Robinson and is now completely surrounded by a collection of yes men, lackeys and useful idiots. It hasn’t likely dawned on them that they are mere pawns on his chess board. I hope I am wrong with my thinking but suspect we will learn soon as to his reasons for not being legally liable for protecting members’ interests.

As Motherwell were mentioned in the thread, I worry we're heading for a similar situation to where Motherwell found themselves last summer, but even worse. The fact the joint GMFC/MCT statement said that the proposal from Dalrada needs to go to MCT members means it can't just be another sponsorship deal. By far the most likely explanation is buying shares from MCT. If that's some sort of minority stake then fine, let's look at the terms of it. However I fear that it's actually going to be an attempt to take full control of the club, which again I'm not necessarily opposed to in the right circumstances but I certainly don't think Dalrada can be trusted after recent events. The Motherwell situation last summer was that they had a club board made up of a majority of Well Society reps who were supposed to be there to represent that fan organisation, but seemed to think their actual task once there was to do everything in their power to undermine fan ownership from within and find whatever private buyer they could to take control, no matter how bad a deal it was for the club and fan organisation - it would stop those board members, who would stay on after the takeover, having to face any oversight from the pesky fans who put them there, and that's the main thing. So far, so familiar. The deal the Motherwell board agreed with Erik Barmack (film producer and former Netflix vice-President) was frankly insane. He would buy 47% of the club, but this would give him full control of the board with the fan organisation being sidelined. The investment was trumpeted in the media as being worth around £2M, but in reality he'd have taken full control of the board from day one, on a payment of £300K, with it taking six years to invest the full £2M, and the Well Society's stake remaining at 50.1% being predicated on matching almost every penny Barmack spent over that six years - they were effectively being asked to pay for the privilege of their shareholding being massively diluted, and if they failed to keep up their payments more shares could go to Barmack. When it came to a vote, Barmack withdrew before the voting was closed because it was clear it was already heading for a resounding no. Now maybe this comparison is massively unfair or paranoid on my part, but in the void of silence speculation is natural and there are some things pointing to it. We keep hearing this £700K figure being thrown around, but quite often it's been prefaced as "up to £700K". What if this isn't for sponsorship at all, it's for buying half of/a majority of/all of MCT's shares, but the base price isn't anything like £700K? What if it's say £350K up front and the other £350K is contingent on MCT also raising £350K and matching Dalrada's contribution, with the scenario that MCT only put in eg £100K meaning Dalrada also only put in a further £100K? Back of a fag packet figures here, but the danger of this scenario is clear - for essentially what they've been paying just for shirt and stadium sponsorship, Dalrada would seize control of the club while continuing to get that sponsorship and MCT would be expected to pay for privilege of diluting their own shareholding. The reason I say this situation would be far worse for us than for Motherwell 12 months ago is at least they weren't over a barrel in the timing of it, which is the exact same reason I can't trust that Dalrada have the club's best interests at heart. Their manager and players had been given the budget for the season and gotten on with pre-season because the third party buying in wasn't also the shirt and stadium sponsor who could cut and run if it didn't go through, it was all background noise as far as the playing side of the club was concerned. We however do appear to be over a barrel. If the GMFC board, whether by accident or design, have created the situation where we have absolutely no backup plan for shirt and stadium sponsorship if Dalrada don't provide it when the budget for next season should have been confirmed to the manager weeks ago, and Dalrada providing anything is dependent on being given a majority stake in the club, we're basically between a rock and hard place. We can choose between rushing into losing control of the club without being given time to scrutinise the details, or Imrie not being allowed to do his job. You can find alternative shirt and stadium sponsorship, but we don't have weeks to waste finding it. No one could blame Imrie for walking in the latter scenario, but no one could blame the MCT membership for reluctance to commit to the former either. If Dalrada had the best interests of the club at heart they could commit to sponsorship regardless of the outcome of an entirely separate attempt to purchase shares, or alternatively could have made an approach to buy shares months ago when the club could look for alternative sources of sponsorship without destroying the manager's preparations for the following season, while if it was a good deal that benefits the club as much as Dalrada then they wouldn't need to resort to putting a gun to MCT's head in this manner to approve it. John Laird was reported to have travelled to the US in late March/early April for talks with Dalrada. We're now in mid-May and we've had no confirmation of what came of that meeting. Is this why Dalrada were so keen to keep the current board members in place, that there could be no contingencies made of finding alternative sponsorship when there was time to do so without fucking Imrie over, due to the GMFC board fully supporting a sale without ever having consulted members? Leaving MCT members presented with a fait accompli, where refusing to give Dalrada the keys for shite terms would leave planning for next season in an even greater mess than currently and pretty much guarantee relegation? Maybe I'm being a paranoid idiot with unhelpful speculation here and this is all massively unfair to both Dalrada and the GMFC Board, and I hope that's the case. The more I think about what Dalrada could actually be looking to get out of this though, the more I worry.

Nice. And his dad didn't even have to threaten that he would switch allegiances to Portugal to try to get the call up.