Leaderboard

I think overall the meeting has to be considered a success, largely thanks to Brian Bonar reassuring us regarding any future share issues. I do think though that, yet again, MCT need to address online attendees having their questions ignored in favour of questions in the room. This has been an ongoing issue, and although there is some mitigation because of the venue change and the technical difficulties, there needs to be a bit more structure in these meetings to make sure members attending online have their questions heard. Ahead of the meeting, my main concerns were future GMFC share issues, the club chairman and the credibility of the MCT representatives on the club board. Brian Bonar dialling into the meeting via Zoom was a very welcome development, as he allayed the fears many supporters had that Dalrada may have nefarious intentions regarding the running of the club and their representation in the boardroom. I do think however, the fact that Mr Bonar convinced more people within five minutes than the two documents and video released by MCT/GMFC directors, is rather telling of how poorly the proposal was relayed to the membership. The sheer volume and range of questions, along with the turnout at the meeting, highlighted how many supporters did not feel they were in a position to make an informed decision. This underlines just how lacklustre the presentation of the proposal was. Both the club and MCT need to learn from this and quickly. This is underlined by the fact that GMFC/MCT refused point blank to release the proposed agreement, citing commercial confidentiality as the reason for this refusal. Brian Bonar then refuted this outright, saying that he’d make the agreement available to anyone who wished to view it. Again, this gives little confidence in the capabilities of those negotiating and communicating to the membership on behalf of MCT. For all Brian Bonar’s very charming performance at the meeting did reassure me that future GMFC share issues would not be a concern, the opposite could be said of the performance of the club chairman. I felt Laird presented in an incredibly arrogant and self aggrandising manner. Given his role in hiding a transfer embargo from the club’s majority shareholders, I’d assert that Dalrada may be the only stakeholder in the club that are pleased to see Laird continue in this role. The complete lack of transparency regarding the links to his son’s football coaching and analysis company seems to be an issue that has not been answered, given his complete denial of any knowledge of this in the FAQ document. I for one am very concerned that our club chairman has never been subject to the SFA’s fit and proper assessment for club directors, and the motivations behind the decision not to enlist him for these assessments. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, this is incredibly concerning and something I feel fans deserve answered definitely, rather than the chairman consistently trying to dodge this issue. With John Laird confessing that the transfer embargo is still an ongoing matter at the EGM, this brings me to the subject of our MCT representatives. For all both Robinson and Barr seemed to offer rather mealy mouthed apologies for their role in this, my position is that the damage has already been done. The confidence of the membership is absolutely vital to MCT, and for such an egregious breach of trust to be willingly conducted by both these individuals, and the knock on effect this caused within the MCT board, is risible. I'd also remind the membership that this is not the first time Graham Barr has wheeled out the 'learn lessons and do better next time' line. MCT need a clear plan on how they plan to re-establish the trust of the membership. I’m incredibly pleased that Dalrada’s involvement in Greenock Morton will continue, and that certainty can be provided to Dougie Imrie as quickly as possible to allow our squad building to commence. That doesn’t paint the whole picture however, and I think both boards must be willing to reflect on how poorly they have performed over the last few months. We need an MCT that thrives and continually pushes the club forward, and the behaviour of some of our representatives in recent times has rocked the organisation to its foundations. I'm glad Dalrada are on board, but we must do better.

How did he manage to beat John369 to the exclusive?

Anyway, my bottom line is this: I feel significantly reassured - but not totally - about the prospect of an 'underground' share issue. I feel very reassured about the content of the agreement not having any hidden loopholes in it, and I feel very reassured that even if there were, Dalrada aren't looking for ownership via the back door. I will be emailing to ask for a copy to be 100% sure. These have me leaning very heavily towards 'Yes' based on the substance of the deal. Having had no real opinion on John Laird previously, I am very unimpressed with both his manner, and the substance of most of his responses. His continued evasion over the delays - notwithstanding Brian Bonar's health issues (from which I'm very glad he's on the mend) - was a display of brass neck. This tilts me somewhere back towards 'No' because Brian made it clear on the call he'd be relying on the Board to effectively get their house in order, and while Laird is not a voting member of the board, he's something of a 'chair' and I think he sets a bad tenor around the place, notwithstanding his business record. I think he's very Rae-like in that he doesn't like accountability, he doesn't like structure, and he operates best in a smoke-filled room with a lot of ambiguity. That, to me, is completely the incorrect approach both for a fan-owned club and for a club that's fiscally dependent on a major sponsor whose entire family are watching us like hawks. As for MCT: I do sympathize with Graham Barr in some ways. It's horrible to be part of a big issue at work that can't be fixed quickly, for which you have responsibility, and for which the hindsight is clear that you should have done differently. I've been there. So on a human level, yeah, I feel for the guy. But he's a director of the club. Everyone involved seems to have full confidence in him. And I just can't understand where that's coming from based on the last few months. The same applies to Sam Robinson - admittedly I don't know everything he said tonight because the microphone was rubbish. But on the transfer saga alone we've gone from "we kept it quiet for good reasons and while not everyone agrees, we were right" to "there are some aspects of regret" (not verbatim) to tonight's actual apology. I really don't get it. Apparently he (Barr) has had some dark nights of the soul, writing things but not publishing them, thinking of speaking out but then not, whatever. I think situations like this call for clarity and based on the last few weeks I just don't think he's up to that. That coupled with the train crash rollout of the vote, which got a good amount of discussion tonight, just leaves me scratching my head about how the top brass can look at the current composition and say "yep, they're the guys to get us out of this mess." That has me leaning back towards 'No.' However: MCT and GMFC are both ultimately correct that MCT has an absolute ton of turnover. It's not an easy job. Not everyone can do it, and most who can will have other things going on. There just isn't - as far as I can tell - a bench of talent waiting to fill the spots on the board from the MCT roster. Thus I can kind of understand why they (Dalrada) want to stick with the devil they know, and there's enough about the current guys that they can - presumably - be steered towards something productive. I don't actually agree with this but I can see why they would think that. Finally: I think any deal like this is risky. I can well understand why the Bonar family have a six-month get-out clause, and why it's only a year. I have a greater concern that we'll go down the QP route of getting accustomed to being flush, and then it all disappearing. This money's going to Imrie's squad-building: are we permitting multi-year contracts? I hope not. I think a deal with a get-out clause and a one-year duration is fundamentally incompatible with aspirations towards Premier League football. I think the various yer da's in the audience talking about administration and part-time football should be ashamed of themselves. Fearmongering that even the deal's architects aren't putting out there is just manipulative. After this Dunning-esque essay, at this exact moment I would abstain. If I can find nothing to worry about in the substance of the agreement, I will vote Yes. I will then treat the future votes over the interim board's appointments, and the review of the business in January, separately from this.

I see that's us now advertising the Groundsman's position, without a single word to acknowledge that Mark Farrell left the club. As someone has pointed out on twitter, our esteemed GM got a full article announcing his departure, and we've heard nothing about Farrell, or indeed Andy Millen. Transparency eh.

Brilliant news. Good to see the Wilson to Partick, pre contract was indeed a load of shite.

All a club has to do is offer a deal on equivalent terms to what the player was earning under the previous contract in order to trigger the compensation. Given the season that Lyall had, there were always going to be other suitors for him, and the likelihood that he’d have got a better offer than we gave him last season was around 99.9%. There was no risk. And to be honest, if players/clubs/agents think that we’re out of order by squeezing what we can out of every deal, they’re in the wrong industry. While you want to see young players succeed, Morton aren’t a charity, and have to look after their own financial interests. If the fee was so insignificant that it didn’t matter, can I get my £295 back for my season ticket and just go to the games anyway? I dare say that’s not a lot in the grand scheme of things. No, I didn’t think so.

This sort of shite is just as bad as allowing the club to fall under a FIFA embargo, a complete dereliction of duty.

How come Dale gets the whole "thanks for your efforts and hard work over the last 20 months" stuff and we weren't even told about Mark Farrell after his work over the last 20 years? What happened there? Dale had a tough job and didn't do himself any favours by over-promising on what could be delivered. He ended up being a bit of a divisive character, and I'm not surprised he's looked for another job.

"My primary motivation for returning was to help ensure the club's financial viability in the Championship. I believe we've achieved that goal." Ah yes, surely the bronze statue awaits on Sinclair Street for our selfless hero upon stepping down. Except that it is, as usual, self-serving bollocks of course. Acting with the primary aim stated (leaving aside the 'viability' of a model now dependent to a larger annual benefactor that Douglas Rae, so what is meant is 'fullll-time futba') would be a potentially valid excuse for MCT directors who were also on the GMFC board. We could reject that claim on their part too, but the conflict of serving two masters at once os clear. But last time I checked, Stuart Duncan was not sitting on the GMFC board in any capacity. There was no competing source of authority - the only role that Duncan had was as a member of the MCT board. Which raises some rather unfortunate questions for our erstwhile hero: 1) With what legitimate mandate did you act against the interests of the MCT membership you were elected to represent? When did you publicly state your prioritisation of 'fullll time futba' over the interests of the majority stakeholders in GMFC for full transparency and accountability, and when did you win sufficient support for that agenda? I don't recall that being on any candidate biography. 2) With what legitimacy at all did you act after both i) resigning from the MCT board in a tantrum and ii) canvassing support for an EGM against the remainimg board membership - an EGM that was conveniently discarded 0.4 seconds after you were 'co-opted' onto the interim MCT board? So no, I don't think there'll be a bronze statue forthcoming at all. If there is one lesson that new candidates should be embracing from this farcical last 6 months, it is that MCT board members must uphold a duty of fair representation and accountability towards the membership. If we continue to have MCT directors who get elected by default and then just run their own agenda, then MCT as an organisation will join GMST (see also Duncan, Stuart) in being a failed rump entity within 10 years.

If only we had a chairman with experience as a football agent who could advise us on transfer matters and help us plan to avoid scenarios such as this one.

C'mon guys, let's de-escalate this before it gets out of hand. Next thing, you'll be using exclamation marks against each other and no-one wants to see that.

Still waiting on the Wilson with a Partick scarf photo.

He was pish.

Gourlay's crime:

Just in now* - I can sympathise with those on the online feed who had a frustrating experience at times. That said. it was always going to be frustrating - including in the room itself - and given the significant meanders of the first half I'm happy that exchanges weren't constantly being repeated for the benefit of the Zoom call. We'd either still be there now or little of substance would have been addressed. The moderatos from Supporters' Direct did a good job in very difficult conditions - not least with guidance on how to handle procedural issues. There are lots of issues that couldn't be directly addressed tonight the 3 key points I highlighted in preparation beforehand are below: 1) Using the six month notice - having MCT setting in stone a meeting for (January?) with news of Dalrada's stance going into the 26-27 season is critical. We cannot have this happening again - any future partnership deal needs to be on the table and ready to decide on ASAP. Hopefully this commitment can be taken forward and approved. 2) Board composition - who decides on the remaining 3 members? Unlike some in the room, i don't actually want MCT to necessrily have majority representation on the club board - the right skillsets are needed, and in the short-term there would be a shortfall of candidates given the enormous turnover within MCT itself. Brian Bonar indicated (verbally) that he has no issue with the remaining board members being MCT. which is a verbal reassurance but not strictly necessary IMO. What I did want greater detail on is how the selection process for new board members would work in the event of a split decision - what if some board members think a candidate is ideal, while others think that they are useless? Who ultimately decides? There wasn't time to address that. While I don't think that MCT requires a majority on the club board, it does require realistic power to prevent any bloc vote emerging on the GMFC board. That's still a longer-term concern for me - but I don't think having the stadium director or adding a 'finance lead' (their words) in the next few months would represent a hostile takeover. 3) Share issues. This was raised quite rightly by Gordon Ritchie in the meeting (and by @Greacen2000 etc. in submissions for the FAQ document). There was further verbal confirmation that a meeting is planned to adjust GMFC articles to further restrict new share issues. I'd like to see the ball rolling on that meeting right away tbh - set the date; set out that agenda. The current lack of trust/accountability would make this a sensible decision in the final hours of voting. That said, we have a verbal confirmation at the meeting this evening as well as a video stating this position too: could this realistically be reversed between now and January? The selection of new MCT directors is one way of further insuring against that - a new MCT board that is firmly against accepting dilution of the existing shareholding through rights issues would strengthen this point. The final - nuclear - option in the events of a rogue rights issue would be to just launch a sack the board campaign: the club needs the relatively united support of the fanbase regardless of whether Dalrada are in the room or not. MCT members can withhold payments - matches can also be turned into hostile environments. So there are still cards to play even if you do not take current officeholders at their word - but moving forwrad on that immediately would set minds at ease. Overall thoughts: The purpose of the above points is to impose sufficient safety brake measures in this proposal. If the share issue loophole is on track to be closed and if the ball is rolling to have open communication from January '26 on the future of the Dalrada partnership, then the most immediate risks would IMO be mitigated. It is absolutely right however to require those brakes being in place though - if this were a rolling contract proposal that required MCT to explicitly pull the plug in the future then I would have already voted No. The level of trust in current officeholders at GMFC and certain members of the MCT board is simply nowhere near high enough to commit to a longer term deal. I have not voted yet, but if the proposal looks more firmly like allowing things to essentially run until January 2026 and then giving all sides a better opportunity to take stock, then I could support that. *half an hour ago, when this tome was started

They have been taking that tone about everything for a long time now and either need slapped down a peg or two or cut off.

Maybe it’s time we let go of Lamie. He was great while he was here, but time to move on.

I think everyone knew that there would be serious interest in Lyall from other clubs and there wasn't any real likelihood that he would have stayed with us. It seems like an extremely small risk (if any risk at all) to have offered him a new deal in order to secure even a small amount of compensation. After all, Imrie took on a young player and gave him significant game time (even when he struggled to adjust at first) and helped him become a better player. We did exactly the job we were supposed to do in order to secure that compensation. Who's making these decisions?!

Centre back is the obvious and potentially difficult gap to fill in the squad (needing at least two good signings there) so it's encouraging to see us target that as the priority.

Gillespie and Crawford re-signing entirely fills our 'Scottish football veteran' quota in the middle area of the park. We should be prioritising a replacement (ideally an upgrade) on Lyall - goals, assists and effective in possession.

Love this. Long holiday with his girlfriend. Undoubtedly a big move on the way. Equally, if he took a short break on his own, it's for quiet contemplation, big move on the way. Also, if he's staying at home, it's to make sure he's easily contactable by his agent, because a big move is on the way. Usually.

Aye players rarely go on holiday with their partners at the end of the season, something definitely amiss!

We’re going to the god damn premier league!

Assigned as cellmate to James Gourlay.

Ended up voting yes. I was sufficiently convinced by Brian Bonar to take him at face value and the board should thank him thoroughly because as has been said by someone else their go to mode always seems to be secrecy and lack of transparency while he came out directly and verbally assured the members on the majority of issues we had. I have even less trust and faith in the people running the club than I did before however for the good of the upcoming season and with the assurances given last night I feel it’s more important to take the small victories rather than throw everything out with the bath water at such a late point. Hopefully if the people are added to the board with the right skillsets then we can see the improved governance talked about, and in terms of wanting people removed from the board or their positions it will hopefully be easier to put that in to place with some actual preparation time rather than being forced to make a decision with a gun to our heads that would hurt the club in the short term.

The points about the article amendment in relation to the share issue, the timing of the AGM in relation to the Dalrada break clause, and Bonar’s willingness to share the contract and forego shirt sponsorship are all really positive. I’m now fighting hard with myself to park my contempt for the conduct of some of our board members, and keep that separate from Bonar, Dalrada and the details of the deal. Barr seems like he wants out, and I wish him no ill whatsoever, but that will be best for both parties. Laird and Robinson have established themselves in Dalrada’s good books and are unfortunately going nowhere, so it looks like we’ll just have to swallow that for now. But I think it’s worth saying that the attitude of those two absolutely stinks. The arrogance and the contempt for members/fans they showed tonight are things I’ll remember of both of them. Bonar showed more willingness to offer transparency in a 10 minute call than the others have throughout this entire process. One of the board members (Duncan?) looking for sympathy for the time and effort they had to put in to create the FAQ document (they genuinely don’t see that’s because they initially withheld so much information, despite opening the vote) was infuriating. Hopefully their conduct throughout this process energises the membership and positive changes can be made as a result.

Suspect you're right, but the scrutiny has worked to some extent in that Dalrada's position has shifted a bit in recent weeks. For some reason there's a chunk of the support who seem desperate for MCT to fail so that we can have a rich guy owner to fantasise about. There's been embarrassing infighting and administrative blunders this season, but the current model has brought consistent sporting and financial success for a club of our size (so far at least), which is more than can be said for our last 2 titan-of-industry figureheads.

Name another club that would have been proactively communicating any of that?

Aye, that's pish poor right enough. Mark and Andy both contributed far more to the club that Dale did, and deserve far more respect, thanks and acknowledgement than him. It would seem that absolutely nothing has been learned from the fiasco of the last couple of months, and that's not just disappointing, it's downright frustrating. Sad to say, but I have zero respect or trust for our chairman and board.

I live in hope that the stadium director is waiting to see if we can just repair the metal sheets on the roof, or replace it entirely with a stained glass mosaic with the players depicted to be voted on by MCT at a later date.

You do.

What truth is it you think we haven’t been told? The stadium director was quite clear at the MCT meeting that work would start when they got the go ahead from insurance company that could’ve been a few days after the meeting or weeks there was no specific timeline, he did say it could run into the start of the season and they would need to work out how best to proceed, so not sure what you think they haven’t been telling us

The hard work and effort that he put in for our 150th celebrations will live long in everyone's memories.

If doable, agree with this. There's been a bit of talk that we might be close to saturation point for memberships so looking at other demographics would help if it's doable. Junior memberships, even if formally in the name of a nominated adult is worth looking at as are giftable memberships. May have to jazz it up by issuing a certificate or an edited template of a Tele front page with the headline 'x becomes co-owner of Greenock Morton' just to give it some substance. What about businesses signing up as members? I'm not even talking trying to rinse bigger companies as corporate members/sponsors although we'd gladly take any of those, but even just at standard subscription amount in the name of 1 person on behalf of the business. Every business small and large in the area should have a sticker in the window saying 'proud to support community ownership of GMFC by being a member of MCT'. Should also be a requirement for all staff, players and even consultant club Chairmen to signup for the duration of their time here.

Tele confirming that Murdoch and Keay have been offered 2 year deals.

Along with the increased sponsorship, not having passengers like Mcginn & Broadfoot on the wage bill at the start of the season will also free up some cash to hopefully be put to better use this time round The last few seasons have shown that spending more doesn’t guarantee success. See Raith, Ayr, Dunfermline, QP, Inverness etc etc etc, so yes claiming we are relegation favourites is hyperbolic pish. Hypothetically, if given the choice of 3rd lowest budget in the division with Imrie in charge vs 3rd highest with someone like Mark Wilson, Barry Robson or “broony” in charge I would pick having a good manager above the extra money.

Yeah it’s such a chore when you post something on a public forum and people have the audacity to actually reply. For what it’s worth, I don’t rank the design of the strip particularly high on my list of Morton related priorities at this moment either. The fact however that they have actually ordered and now started selling them with Dalrada as the sponsor before any deal has been signed is another indication that the people running the club at the moment are not doing a very good job. You could argue that making a big fanfare about strip launches & early bird season tickets while staying quiet on more important matters is a bit tone deaf from the club too, but if they hadn’t been launching the strip & season ticket then we would probably be criticising them for inactivity in this area so I will give them a pass on that one at least

Don't believe for a second that McKay is training with us or won't have better offers, and I'm very glad of that. He's still the same shiftless waster who'll only try when he needs a contract that he's always been.

Hopefully the club chairman and board are prepared to explain themselves at the next AGM because that's not acceptable. You offer at least existing terms and either retain one of the most sought-after midfielders in the division, or at least secure a few grand when you most likely lose them. The only irresponsible behaviour here is that of the club chairman and board for allowing this to happen, again. And I hope Brian Bonar is watching and unimpressed.

I couldn't really give a toss about some completely token compensation. But this mewling, off the record take from an nameless 'Morton spokesperson'? "It is another example of why we must ensure we are not in the same situation again in the future." We? You (collectively) were entirely responsible for creating that situation, and waited with supine indifference until the last possible moment to spring a fait accompli on the owners of the club.

Every single one of those double-barreled ringers at Dunfermline last season were stinking.

Aye, good shout.

Don’t back down. Coward.

I know many were asking about how to change their MCT contributions, but they've come out with an email to members today trying to do just that. Simple as that, upped it from a tenner to 20 quid.

“An opportunity has presented itself in another country which he is keen to pursue”

I'm not at all against the idea of increasing my own contribution and appreciate that the sooner income increases the better - you'd rather have Dalrada investing an increased monthly sum from July rather than October - but I want to wait and see how the MCT board elections go and what proposals candidates have for the future of MCT before doing so. It was right that the meeting on Monday was directed away from recriminations over the timeline of the deal and what happened with the embargo to allow as many questions on the substance of the deal as possible. When it comes to a future MCT board, if anyone who was on it a month ago when everything kicked off is standing then it will be entirely appropriate to fully delve into the detail of what happened and those candidates' role in it, because the primary failing and cause of a collapse in trust in both MCT & GMFC has been a lack of transparency. Every candidate should show a commitment to improving that and if it's someone who's been part of the board already, demonstrate why they weren't part of the problem.

To be fair the return of traditional knicker-wetting is kind of comforting as it means we are beyond the Dalrada/MCT/GMFC/Laird debacle and back on message. Give it time and I will be rambling on about the lack of interesting friendlies.

The hosts flatly refused to release it. Brian Bonar then dialed in later and said anyone who wants to see it can email him. While I don't have his email, he's easily found on LinkedIn. Every officer who remarked on it was absolutely unequivocal about the share issue, and said it simply would not happen. I forget what the next steps there are to formalize it, but that's a GMFC Articles thing and not an MCT one. Perhaps out of naivete, I choose to take them at their word for now with the belief that they will, indeed, formalize it later. There was a motion made and passed to ensure the January meeting is scheduled.. I think. It was hard to make it out at times. On that subject, while I do appreciate that the move to the MSC was at relatively short notice, and everyone involved here is a volunteer, there is an important point. Far more people dialed in tonight than attended, and for many of us this was out of necessity - I can't take the time out of my professional and family life, not to mention the expense, to be in the room for those meetings. I'm thousands of miles away and I'm far from the only one. The Articles explicitly state that getting audio-visual parity for these meetings is a requirement, not an added bonus. This is in article 24, assuming that we treat Zoom as an 'overflow room'. This stuff isn't a novelty anymore and really needs to be done professionally, and it's not really acceptable that a majority of those present weren't given audio parity, much less any other kind. The meeting chair is empowered to call short a meeting that doesn't meet these standards and if the next meeting has those of us attending by Zoom effectively out of the loop for a good quarter of the conversation, I will be asking them to exercise that right. So that this gets to the right people I'll be emailing MCT tomorrow with a summary of this request, along with some hints for setting up a room effectively for these things (I have some experience with the tiresome but necessary tasks of rigging up rooms for this kind of thing.)

Laird didn't do himself any favours whatsoever tonight. He had me heading towards a no vote, because he made me feel like we have to just accept his brilliance in allowing us to kick the can down the road for one more year. And it still very much feels like that, and I wasn't filled with confidence that anyone currently on the board wants to actually plan for what comes after this funding inevitably disappears. We should always have a contingency which plans for part-time football and significantly reduced costs. I'm not filled with confidence that Laird would want to lead that. It was only Brian Bonar who was in any way convincing that he simply wants to give the club some funding. It might not exactly be the longer term investment in the foundations of the club we really need, but it will help the first team in the immediate term and I don't get any feeling that there's anything untoward there at all. I think it's a shame that it probably had to be Brian Bonar himself that gave that reassurance because, for whatever reasons, the club board have failed to really build a good relationship with the MCT membership and the larger fanbase (and something still really didn't sit right with me there).

I'm reassured that Bonar doesn't have any nefarious intentions from that, though I can't say the same about some GMFC representatives. That Bonar openly said yes, he's happy for every MCT member to see the written text of the deal tells us that no one on the GMFC board even asked Dalrada the question of whether that was allowed; they've got a default position of opposition to transparency in all circumstances, when if that document had simply been circulated when the vote opened it would have by itself been an answer to every question anyone could ask. I'm far more inclined to vote Yes than I was before the meeting, but I'm still not doing so without seeing that agreement.