Leaderboard - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/18/21 in all areas

  1. The justification for not appointing a sporting director in the Morton Q+A concerned me hugely. I'd argue the exact opposite point - Morton simply can't afford not to appoint a sporting director. MCT membership is nowhere near where it was predicted to be at this point of the first season; MCT's credibility seems to be dwindling by the month; and, largely thanks to MCT's first footballing decision, results on the pitch are pish. I'd say that appointing a successful SD/DoF would go some way to turning the tide on all the biggest issues currently facing MCT.
    2 points
  2. I'm more concerned about us losing Gourlay after that free kick he's just scored.
    1 point
  3. One uninformed decision (amateur directors appointing a DoF), followed by a series of decisions being made with a more informed decision-making model, is going to have a higher success rate than the current model. Increasing the expertise we have in our football decision-making model increases the amount of footballing decisions we're going to get right. Absolutely nobody is suggesting that a DoF appointment is going to be a magic wand that means we never get another footballing decision wrong. It's optimising our football decision making to ensure that we are, at the very least, guided and advised by someone with industry expertise. Nobody in the fanbase would accept amateurs signing off on the club's books or writing up the takeover agreement between MCT and Golden Casket because they'd an amateur interest in accountancy or law for thirty years. The potential consequences are catastrophic. The fact that our representatives on the Morton board are in favour of this approach in footballing operations, the most important facet of the club, is as unacceptable as it is staggering. Anyone, upto and including the people on the current club board who have appointed themselves as football decision makers, who can't comprehend the case for a DoF are simply choosing not to.
    1 point
  4. You're absolutely right that any appointment carries a risk, and that appointing a sporting director is a double risk because they might turn out to be absolutely guff (e.g. Gary Holt) and appoint a guff manager as well (e.g. Paul Sheerin.) Then you're screwed twice over. It's completely fair to point out that it's not a guaranteed success. At a certain point you have to admit it's a leap of faith. The idea, though, is that increased expertise and experience - up to a point - decreases the faith aspect; and it's also the case that, even should an SD fail, that's not evidence that having no SD wouldn't have been even worse yet. Regarding a suggested replacement: that's the club's job and if they're unable to identify anyone then it's not really the responsibility of randoms on a forum to fill them in.
    1 point
  5. Absolutely. With a good sporting director overseeing the footballing facets of the club, and Chris Ross overseeing the business facets of the club, we are fan owned and expert run. That's the pitch we were given when asked to get involved in this project. Whilst we've amateurs making footballing decisions, making an arse of it, and refusing to answer the fanbase on the back of it, we're a million miles away from that.
    1 point
  6. The Easdales who are our major sponsors and the former chairman who allowed the transfer to fan ownership being guests at a game really shouldn't be major news. If the board start having to publically comment on nonsense like that then we might as well shut the club down. So many more pressing matters of concern than that.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...