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.

That “statement” is an absolute abomination. First tip is to make things like this as brief as possible to get your point across and maintain the reader’s attention throughout. I say that as I write a massive rant. The only reason I read the whole thing was because it was so comically bad and there are so many holes to be picked in it. I’ll ignore the spelling and grammar. Straight off the bat, “It’s been brought to our attention…” Nothing’s been brought to your attention fellas, you’ve seen some other snotty nosed collection of brats with a similarly inflated sense of their own importance whining about not getting things their way on Instagram, tell it how it is. “The Scottish Ultra scene has risen significantly up and down the country and should be supported and backed instead of classed as a criminal activity.” Why? What good does it actually do? Are these folk helping pensioners across the road? Are they collecting for food banks? (I know some are, but our wee gang certainly aren’t.) Are they doing litter collections in their towns and cities? Or are they running around, hiding their identities and as a result putting fear and uncertainty in the minds of the communities they’re entering or a part of? Is throwing a pyro at a child who is being escorted from the pitch after completing their mascot duties not a criminal activity? ”We have boycotted games due to the unfair punishments on our members…” I’m afraid this requires a bit of context. We’re aware that the club banned seven fans for up to two years, but they quite rightly didn’t comment further. If this group wish to condemn the bans as unjust and garner external support, I’m afraid they have to detail what was so wrong with the club’s course of action and let those who they are trying to convince decide. I’ve seen none of that, just complaints about how this is wrong but not why it’s wrong. Partick v Morton ”The group were targeted with stop and search and hiding in concourses…” They clearly didn’t search them thoroughly enough considering there was plenty pyro lit in that old wooden stand. ”Police Scotland and Partick Thistle stewards made this an extremely unsafe surrounding not just for the group, but also for younger kids who attend matches with families.” I’m sorry but this is absolutely mental, and the worst bit of an already dreadful statement. You threw a pyro at a child! You have no moral high ground here, get off your fucking cross. The home games could all be merged into one daft wee rant in all honesty. The police were driving at high speeds when children were about. Fuck off, if they feel it’s appropriate, they’re allowed to do that. They hit members with batons, too. Any evidence of any bruising been produced? I’d say that’s quite an allegation to make of a public body without concrete evidence to support your claims. Their entrance to the train station was closed off? Their entrance, or everyone’s entrance? Again, if the police think it’s appropriate for public safety, it’s their gift to take these measures. They were outnumbered by police? That’s on you, boys. And to be honest as a tax payer, it pisses me off that you’ve gained such a reputation that the police feel the need to spend so much of our money on people who we’ve witnessed with our own eyes committing criminal acts. That’s said, I’m just not having it that there were 3-4 cops per member of their group. More alllegations of being hit with batons and police turning off body cams is incredible. I’m sure their superiors would have footage up to the point the cameras were turned off and ask questions of exactly what happened to their officers. It just didn’t happen, let’s be honest. I’d also question the timing of this statement. The bans were a few weeks ago now, and we’ve had two games since in which we got good results and were played in front of positive atmosphere’s from a Morton perspective. These guys haven’t been missed. Could it be that there was a high profile incident at the weekend of a group of similarly entitled neds not being allowed into a local derby that has attracted a lot of media attention so this lot are piggy backing onto it? I’m sure none of that wee mob even read this forum and will dismiss the ramblings of miserable old guys like us who don’t understand them, but I’d challenge them to convince us that we’re wrong, and fill in some of the glaring gaps in their account of what’s been happening to them.

Irnbru your bitterness towards MCT knows no bounds. You had your day - move on. Just to add I am not a member of MCT. I responded to the shareholder AGM e-mail, was sent a link and had no problem joining the meeting. My two boys also got send the e-mail but were not able to participate. The issue with some stakeholders missing out however requires to be urgently addressed. Gordon Ritchie appears to be the point of contact and I would hound him to get it resolved. As for the AGM, I am sure when one of the volunteers has a moment they will provide a proper summary. In the meantime my take on it as follows: - The loss in 2021/22 was concerning/alarming but has to a great extent been addressed after MCT took over. The feeling was historically costs were not as closely monitored when people assumed there was always a sugar daddy down the line to bail the club out. - This years accounts, when they are published (after the year-end in May) will show a healthy profit largely due to the cup game with Celtic bringing in over £200k. Even without this 'windfall' the Board are confident the club would break even. - Recent sponsorship deals are crucial to the financial balancing act. If I picked it up correctly, the main sponsor Dalrada provided a 12 month package with the option for a further 5 years. Dalrada require the club to share in their ambition for GMFC to succeed and the Board are optimistic/positive Dalrada will take up the option to exercise the option to extend sponsorship at the end of this season. - The majority of the new sponsorship monies has all gone to the manager to improve the squad hence the additions, contract extensions and loanees in January. - All players contracts have been reviewed updating from a template someone found on the internet to a more bespoke arrangement reflecting the modern world of football. - The Board are aware with success other clubs could come in for the manager and players. The Board have tried their best to protect the Club but accept if the money is right they will not stand in the way of an individual looking to better themselves. It is a difficult balancing act protecting the 'assets' without handing out lengthy and onerous contracts to players who maybe do not ultimately fulfil their potential (my words not the Board). - For the first time I heard people explicitly stating the ambition is not just survival in the league but promotion. Realistically recent results have made a title win more difficult but we should be targeting a play-off place. - Average gates are slowly increasing. - The ongoing ticket and entry farce at Cappielow was fully acknowledged. No quick solution this season but the proposed arrangements in the future should hopefully resolve the issue. - Proposals in hand to improve the fan experience and tidy up Cappielow. The Board are looking at the options for the parcel of land they acquired to do something similar to what Ayr provide in their car park. I believe it is a mix of something for the fans on the ground floor and offices above. - Importantly the proposals to replaces the 'Articles' were passed with only one minor amendment requiring (not optional) the Board to hold an AGM. - The three Board members, in attendance, highlighted they would encourage any fan to come forward for election to the Board if they believe they have something to offer. The Club is now 'ours' and it is up to us to ensure it not just survives but moves forward. I am sure there are aspects of the AGM I have omitted but hopefully the above is an accurate recollection of the main points I recollect.

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.

Top 3 of our most convincing performances this season, the scoreline massively flattered an away outfit that scored one of their two chances in the entire game. Rudden's goal should have been a mere footnote when at least 3 goals up already, but they created nothing afterwards either. No failures today and a lot of very good performances, but I'd like to highlight the defensive unit as a whole. Boyes and Delaney have had some stick recently but both were excellent today, with Boyes even creating good chances with his distribution. While we've had some better individual defenders, I think our current back four, with Mullen as well as Wilson to come back too is the most balanced and effective defence I've seen. The credit also has to go to the overall standard of coaching. For us to be hitting the 40 point mark and being arithmetically secure from 10th with 7 fucking games to play is yet another outrageous turnaround given the losses and difficult transition we experienced in the summer. The tactical organisation of this squad is superb and three straight wins without a fit striker couldn't demonstrate that more clearly.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DGeF0oWMcvp/?igsh=ZTdrd3ZqazQ0cnFl

Since 2012, Rangers have put the names of every single person who put their hand in their pocket to save their club on every kit.

As a club we are currently a complete shambles and the responsibility for this falls fully on Laird, the GMFC Board and MCT Board. It is shameful that so many who are responsible for this failing in governance and responsibility to shareholders, MCT members and fans choose to continue to hide in the shadows - their only interest appears to be self-preservation and not what is in the best interests of the Club. We are a fan-owned Club but this last season has confirmed this means nothing to those in charge - we are being taken for fools. Whether intentional or unintentional this response to the many questions out there is contradictory and incomplete. Nothing has changed - MCT members are being invited to vote with a gun to their heads. I suspect the motion will pass due to a combination of apathy and fear. I don't blame anyone who votes in favour of the resolution but this is not what we were promised as a fan owned club. In the circumstances, you cannot blame the manager and players looking elsewhere as who in their right minds would want to be part of this shitshow.

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?

Hopefully everyone who was said the sky was falling because we didn't have a full squad two weeks ago feels suitably daft. People were wanting "statements" to clarify the budget.

NOPE! just not having that and disappointed that no one else has flagged this up. Maybe in your Texas hick town, but not here. I have been in and out of various hospitals in Larbert and Glasgow over the last few months and i can assure you that the nurses and indeed any hospital staff I have encountered have been absolutely superb and the treatment from the NHS in general has been outstanding.

The other spin off is that it allows the fans to identify a bit more with the players. The only positive impression I had about any of them was from a couple of pals that are also mates with Lewis Strapp. Other than that my impression a couple of months ago came from Lithgow and Muirhead cupping their ears to us. It’s not terribly important to a miserable old bastard like myself, but I think it can only be a good thing if it’s allowing younger fans to identify with their personalities and to see them having a laugh. I’ve never actually seen him name checked on the progress in terms of social media interaction, so it’s about time the lad Gareth got a well deserved pat on the back for his hard work. Also really pleasing to see Open Goal turning up at Cappielow today- again, not my favourites, but they’ve got a bloody big following, so a bit of nationwide exposure can only be a good thing.

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.

If those drafting the proposal are to be taken at their word that they truly only have the best intentions for the club and fanbase, a ‘no’ vote should not represent an immediate end of their interest. People with a genuine desire to improve things for the club and the community would respond by trying to ascertain why the vote didn’t go in their favour and formulate a series of amendments to get the deal over the line. There should be no room for an “offer” to be made in a strong armed manner that suggests the ownership can either take it or get stuffed.

https://gmfc.net/an-update-on-recent-supporter-behaviour-at-matches/ Good, measured statement from the club. Long story short, seven people hit with two-year banning orders, and the next Partick game is Category A, meaning we're on the hook for police costs. I am glad the club pointed out it's not just Morton at fault here but Partick and other clubs too, but our job's to keep our own house in order and the seven bans are a good start.

Great, isn’t it? I couldn’t have imagined when walking out of the ground that glorious day in April 2019 just how things would have gone from bad to so much worse for them to the extent that they’re realistically looking at a fourth year in that division, with another monied club coming up from League Two and ready to storm past them towards next year’s title. Even when you consider how much of a shit show we’ve been for most of those intervening years, the Falkirk soap opera’s been fantastic viewing to soften the blow. There’s always someone worse off than yourself, and I for one couldn’t have cherry picked a bigger shower of bastards for that fate to befall. Get it up them.

"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.

A lengthy post about…not much. Sorry. In the spirit of transparency and good communication, my name is Craig and I sometimes do some filming for the club and Morton in the Community. With all the recent nonsense I reached out to the GMFC board members a few days ago through an email to Dale to offer them the chance to do quick interviews to explain their position on the upcoming vote and why, as well as hopefully explaining some of their recent actions. I also emailed coms@MCT with the same offer, and Graham McLennan and through him those who have recently stepped away. I also said in all my communications that I would share everything (hence this). In the past I had a few dealings with Graham McLennan and a few texts messages with Graham Barr while I was doing ‘Ton TV match days during lockdown. I don’t know any of the others. The only 2 who got back to me were McLennan and Barr. McLennan was open to the idea as he felt fans should have as much information as possible pre-vote. Graham Barr took the time to get in touch, but was reluctant as he was worried that more “tit for tat stuff and sharing is just going to keep the mess going…” but was happy to speak to me on the phone. I replied that not sharing stuff seemed to have led us to this mess and speaking to me on the phone would only add to the “I’ve heard that…”etc etc on places like this forum. He said he was “keen to speak but cautious” adding “I’m certainly open to transparency ahead of the meeting and hope the FAQs will go along way to providing more depth to the situation” But in the end it looks like it isn’t happening and I thanked him for getting back to me. Graham McLennan on hearing that he was the only person so far willing to do an interview on camera decided that it might not be a great idea if it was just him, looking more like propaganda rather than just one point of view among others. I don’t really have a platform and I’m no investigative journalist, so I guess I’m not surprised that the idea of me and my camera didn’t appeal. But as many of us on here have scratched our heads wondering if we should do more as MCT members it was the only thing I could think of. Anyone who is at all bothered can look back at my posts on here to get my personal opinion on things as they currently stand, but I honestly offered this up with an open mind to try and give all involved a chance to clear the air and help inform our judgement. My real bias working in video production, is that watching videos makes things easier to digest rather than lengthy written statements (or bloody posts like this!) If I had an agenda it was simply to try and help with all this, and help ensure that after over 45 years of standing in the cowshed (with or without the sun-roof) that I could look forward to continuing to do so far in the future. The last time I tried to do anything vaguely similar is when MCT were struggling to get things going not long after they took over at the club, I just wanted to do something positive as the whole atmosphere was fairly toxic. It turned out to be the day Gus MacPherson was sacked when I grabbed a hold of Andy Ritchie who kindly gave me this piece to camera. It all still rings true to me which is no surprise as Andy always speaks so well…

The sense of entitlement to special treatment and expectation of fawning gratitude from these ultra groups seems to be the same at every club. You're getting out your tits and hitting a drum lads, not working as volunteers for the benefit of other fans.

MCT still generates some really weird, overly negative reactions. 3 years of fan ownership has delivered 3 years of championship football and a huge financial turnaround. That already counts as success for a provincial club at this level, no matter what happens next. No ownership model will make us immune to losing players or getting relegated. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than it was under the Raes. Its also a lot better than the alternative (which was, and still is, nothing).

I want Strapp to do well and have a good career but if I'm being asked to sympathize with the treatment of a pure gallus local lad who we let train here when he wasn't with the club, or support the best manager we've had in our lifetime, I'm picking Imrie every time and twice on Sundays.

Tedious dirge, but fair play to Dunning for not being bored into submission.

It’s such a tiny thing but was really pleased to see this pop up on my phone when I got home from Kelty - we really have got our act together now. Working with Fanbase has been a great decision from the club and has made it much easier to get tickets home and away.

Never thought I'd be saying this but as soon as I clear some personal debts I'll be signing up. I had little faith in the fan ownership model but MCT are proving me wrong after an indifferent start. Well done to all involved.

Their capitulation as a club is nothing short of magnificent. Truly magnificent. Horrible, horrible bastards.

Kafka's head would be spinning at this. You're arguing that these proposals are designed to 'shield the stadium from creditors' when they consist of either the stadium being used as security for a debt to a creditor, or just directly giving the stadium to a creditor. Why are you utterly convinced that Golden Casket only have good intentions towards the club and can be viewed as a neutral or even benevolent third party protecting us from malicious ones? They are the creditor that the stadium needs to be shielded from.

Before getting into the lengthy wrongs and wrongs of this on GC's part, on a simple matter of fact, why are they talking about £2M being the figure of debt? As I understood it the debt was £2.5M when MCT first entered into the agreement for a 15% stake, we've since had £1M of debt written off, and each time a further £100K is delivered a further £500K will be written off? Either £1M of debt was never written off, in which case we were lied to, or it was but the club has somehow been run at such a colossal loss (with GC covering the shortfall) over the time since MCT first made the debt cancellation agreement that the debt has stood still. In essence, we're being asked to believe the club has made a loss of half of million pounds since June 2019. Having also been handed that same sum in taxpayer's money for free in the last two months, in practical terms that's saying we've been operating at a one million pound loss in a little over 18 months. Unless Hopkin actually had the biggest budget since McInally was in charge or something, how the fuck could that have happened? We've all been over the very few pros and very many cons of Option 1 before. Once the stadium is out of the hands of the club then, unless it was some sort of legally watertight let to buy arrangement where after X number of years and/or Y number of pounds the stadium passes to the club, we're never getting it back. With Option 2, at least the stadium is remaining in the club's hands rather than directly disappearing with the asset strippers. They could dig their heels in and refuse to give the stadium back forever no matter how much money is dangled in front of them, they can’t do that if we ever managed to raise the money to pay off the debt. The problem is that the debt is a realistically unpayable amount and hangs over us anyway just as having no assets would hang over us, while without any expertise I imagine it's a hell of a lot more difficult to get some kind of agreement that binds GC to never fucking GMFC over when it comes to a debt than it is with a lease agreement. You could feasibly lock in 99 years or something of a peppercorn rent, can you do that with no one calling a debt in? With a security over Cappielow guaranteeing that debt, we ultimately find ourselves at risk of the stadium ending up back in their hands anyway. They are effectively valuing the stadium alone at £2 million. We're eating the same shit sandwich of having no real security whatsoever while being at the mercy of people who've never shown any sign of having the club's best interests at heart. They are actively trying to hand the club over in a worse position than it was in on day one of their ownership 20 years ago. Which brings us to the faith Golden Casket are negotiating in here. While it's not ideal and they'd be seriously pushing their luck with it, if it came to it I could just about bring myself to tolerate a deal that sees them take the car park. I want that to stay with the club as well and think they have no right to waltz off with any assets, but if they're determined to play hardball then grudgingly allowing them that one asset is a trade off that could be worth making in return for a debt free club with full ownership of the stadium itself. Their idea of a compromise over Cappielow though? Okay, have the stadium but in return you still owe us the full amount of debt, which is somehow still over £2M despite us having supposedly cancelled £1M. Oh and we're still doing a runner with this other asset as well. That's absolutely outrageous and there's no doubt they know it. They are utterly shameless, you couldn't mark their necks with a blowtorch. They'll be extremely relieved that fans aren't allowed just now, this is well past the point where they'd be met with a smattering of discontented sack the board chants from the Cowshed. Their own reprehensible conduct has taken things well past that point and they know it. They should be hounded out of this club with nothing.

Well this statement is not ageing particularly well, given that in spite of receiving a £500k taxpayer's grant for literally fuck-all, the current custodians of GMFC have in the following six weeks: - not replaced the manager - not replaced the overall coaching staff like for like - not replaced the goalkeeper coach - not signed a backup goalkeeper - not signed any cunt else - now have a vacant chief executive post All in all, GMFC have now achieved the six staff cuts that they were looking for in January. So what specifically makes this 'run a stupid wee barebones outfit until we strip the assets' exercise incomparable to Hugh Scott's tenure?

Taking parts especially worthy of comment here: This does not address the fundamental point here. The big issue around this is not how confident GMFC or MCT are that Dalrada will keep up with their scheduled payments, but what happens if they fail to do so. This is critically important and we have absolutely no information on it. We all already know there'll be a contract, we need to know what that contract actually enforces. Without a guarantee that there is some form of restitution for the club if Dalrada default (again), it's impossible to support this. Following on from the above, what on earth does "not been missed as such" mean? Did they default on payments or didn't they? Was the GMFC AGM misled when a director of the club said there that Dalrada had failed to keep up with payments? Was there no contractual schedule? If we've actually signed up to a sponsorship deal without one, it really speaks volumes for the excellent governance of those existing board members who are being kept in place as part of a deal to bring us more efficient governance! On the plus side, a six month deadline to bring another deal to the table is positive and means this farce won't be repeated next season in the event of a yes vote, though with that in mind the lack of explanation of why we're doing this in May just now rather than in December or January is noted. This is the single most important question in the whole document, and as covered by others already that isn't an answer. We need an absolutely concrete yes to this question rather than "expected". Which is why, even if it's deemed inappropriate due to commercial sensitivity to release the contract in full (why that couldn't be done with some details redacted I don't know), for this particular detail we should have the actual wording of the relevant sections of the contract, in full and unredacted. We need to know that allowing a third party influence over the board for 12 months in return for 12 months investment doesn't constitute handing them control of the board forever even if the investment stops, without seeing that wording we have no way of knowing we're not doing that and this FAQ has not provided any reassurance whatsoever on that point. For now let's take the specific issue we have with Barr and Robinson out of this. What does "Dalrada have only asked" mean? Does that mean something to this effect will be in the contract? That any removal has to be agreed by the rest of the GMFC board and has to be for a 'solid business reason'? Who decides what constitutes a 'solid business reason'? So if for any reason the MCT membership put forward a motion of no confidence in one of the MCT representatives, then even in the hypothetical scenario that that confidence vote sees 99.9% of the MCT membership go against that MCT rep, if the rest of the non-MCT GMFC board members disagree with that decision, or Dalrada feel it's not a solid business reason, then that individual either stays on the board or Dalrada walk? Will it be written into the agreement that Dalrada can walk away and abandon their payments unilaterally if the MCT membership and/or MCT board force changes in the MCT representatives? This is why we need to see the actual text of the agreement, to make it crystal clear that that absolutely fucking outrageous suggestion isn't in it. I'm genuinely furious at the idea the rest of the GMFC board and Dalrada would be given a veto like that. Far from leaving the accountability of MCT representatives on the GMFC board unchanged, it would mean there is literally no accountability whatsoever and leave both the MCT membership and MCT board completely powerless to influence who their representatives are. If we're going to accept having our control of the board diluted then we need to actually have the power to choose our representatives for the seats we do have. This needs urgent clarification, and if my interpretation above is indeed the case then that is an utter disgrace. Yeah, we've already had the blatant lie about the motivations of the MCT representatives two weeks ago, piling more deceit on top of their initial dishonest silence. They have also in reality not expressed regret or far less had the decency or humility to apologise for their behaviour. The pertinent facts of the matter are that they both knew about the embargo on 17 March and sat on it for six weeks. Those facts were confirmed by the joint statement of 13 May, a statement which was largely written to defend them. They have already aired their side of the story in that statement, and when given that opportunity they chose to tell a risible lie about not derailing a playoff challenge, when the manager of the first team was also being kept in the dark, because the actual reason is that they thought they could get away with no one ever knowing about the gross incompetence on their watch if it was fixed quickly. I'll not put the image of the whole what caused the FIFA embargo answer here, but there are still gaping holes in that (which tbf should be for GMFC to account for, preferably in a statement announcing the departures of those responsible, rather than MCT). Regardless of the underlying issues that arose through the initial registration of the signing, there have been extremely specific allegations made about the club not monitoring any contact from governing bodies for 8 months, then being made aware of contact from FIFA in November, with the embargo not being enforced until March. The suggestion that the club were trying really hard to contact FIFA but just got stonewalled with an insistence on them sending details to the wrong email address - for four months - is eyebrow raising. If there's a real intention to improve governance, then GMFC addressing those claims is necessary. The word 'advisory' is used an awful lot in the John Laird section. If he's just there as an advisory figure, for strategic support, with no formal authority or responsibilities, then why is he the Chair of the Club (not of the GMFC board, such a significant distinction) rather than remaining as an unofficial advisor? And why then, with his apparent lack of independent authority, with all decisions being taken by the board, was he the one who travelled alone for negotiations with Dalrada? If his role is seemingly so lacking in any real influence, why is it a condition of the proposal that he remains in place? That entire section provides more questions than answers. This doesn't answer the question.

An alternative story and criticism of the club is out there in terms of the transfer embargo. And it makes their washing their hands of any blame look awful. There needs to be acknowledgment that mistakes were made and relationships have been poor. The story about Millen has been out for a long time now, but we're still in the dark about it. Indeed, I heard that even Imrie was in the dark about it when it happened. If they didn't want the story to filter out in this way then they shouldn't have gone about things the way they did. We're at a point when we at least need some clarity. These are two areas where under other circumstances things maybe could be swept under the carpet, and there are others (what happened with catering being one), but when I'm being asked to make a really important decision I need to know a little bit more about what's been going on. They're doing this at a really vital moment for planning for next season, and want me to make a really important decision, but I don't know much about Laird whatsoever. Why is the chairman of the club always do silent? I don't even fully understand why he's chairman, or what he bringing to the role. Why are the directors on the board so silent? I think what gets me most is the leak which started this thread. When self interest was at stake, people were happy to anonymously leak information. They were happy to criticise what others were doing without taking any criticism upon themselves. Above all else, I'm being asked to trust people who don't seem to be willing to help me get to know them better. I want to know more about Laird, his vision for the club, what he wants to do. I want to hear from Barr and Robinson. I want to know who Gourdie is. I want some humility over the FIFA situation. I want at least a tiny bit of transparency over the Millen situation. I want to know how the pie stall queues have managed to triple in length. I want to know why I should believe that the current club board are the best placed people to lead the club forward. The point I'm trying to make is that it is possible to convince me - I have no grudges, or personal issues - but I'm lacking reasons to trust them. The joint statement made it seem like only others had ever done anything wrong, that the only issues came from people at MCT who didn't know what they were doing or overstepped the mark, but it's hard to trust those who make out like they've never made mistakes. Mistakes were made with the FIFA issue. Start with a proper apology for that and then let us get to know the club board members a bit better. A little bit of humility can go a long way.

You are fully entitled to your view, but there are two points that require challenging: 1) The transfer embargo demonstrates that MCT does not have "total control" to relinquish. This is worth correcting because it is also the false choice peddled by the lackey Interim Board about this proposal: 'fan run' v 'fan owned'. At no point since taking ownership have MCT members demanded the right to run the club - there has been no public voting on sacking managers or setting wage budgets, all the decisions have been delegated to GMFC's board and the paid backroom staff. In addition, MCT never exercised full control of the GMFC board - it was always a mixture of directors from different backgrounds. Right now, MCT has no effective representation at all because its delegates on said board have gone rogue and are serving another master. The transfer embargo was not disclosed by the club to its 90% owner - in what other business relationship would that be acceptable? The issue then is not Dalrada's smart professionals taking over from MCT amateurs. It is actually about having the real and legal owners of the club - its fanbase, through MCT - exercising basic scrutiny over a club that becomes transparent in its decision-making. The current proposal does not provide for this - quite the opposite, in fact - and so at a minimum should be amended: • MCT should retain at least 50% representation on the club board. • The two rogue reps cannot be retained under MCT's official standard. If Dalrada want to take ownership of them, then fine. Ideally: • The fundamental lack of transparency should also be addressed by providing minutes for board meetings to MCT (and any other significant partner), with the MCT board entitled to summarise these for wider publication. 2) If the sponsor wishes to install people with competence, then which of the current board members and/or paid staff will be getting their jotters for the transfer embargo farce, or its pathetic cover-up? None of Dalrada's mates, seemingly, so what about the chairman or the chief executive? The issue with a lack of competence does not stem from fan ownership or MCT having representation on the club board. It stems from the collective decision-making of said board as well as the individual actions of club executives and paid backroom staff. When two of said board members were hauled out for failing in their designated responsibility to MCT, Dalrada threw a tantrum to keep them on the club board - actions speak louder than words when it comes to ensuring competence.

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.

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.

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.

Vale of Clyde have permanently banned their young team after their “derby” with Perershill at the weekend (it’s not a derby, two teams from the opposite end of the city whose weans have manufactured a rivalry because they both like a pyro). Now, under normal circumstances, we may be questioning what could possibly be going on that forced them into such drastic action, but fear not. Step forward Scottish football’s favourite overgrown ned with a selfie stick, Mr Blair McNally… I’m reluctant to share his video and indirectly line his pockets, but think it’s necessary to illustrate what this fella’s influence on kids is. I asked Dale at one of those supporters’ meetings a couple of months ago about Morton’s stance on him and he said that there’s no way he’d get press accreditation for Cappielow. But clubs up and down the pyramid should really be putting a stop to this nonsense by banning him completely. I get the need for publicity, but what he brings to them isn’t positive in the way the other guy, Sam North’s films are. Banning kids who can’t behave is a reasonable step, but looking towards the root cause of the problem could prevent things like this before they become an issue. And he certainly shouldn’t be able to make a living off of this.

On one hand we have a steady match-going crowd, an ever-increasing MCT membership, a positive balance sheet, 3 mid-table seasons in the Championship, no obstacles to outside investment (see - Dalrada), tempered with some short-term negatives caused by a roaster of a GM and a dud of a season on the park (following on from a reasonably exciting one). On the other hand, we have a handful of posters on here and Facebook who have been presenting the same miserable points about terminal doom and personal apathy for literally years now (see page 1 of the MCT updates thread for reference). My own point of view is that the Rae family, Hugh Scott, Alan Lithgow and a successful period in the 70s/80s aren't relevant to the future of the club. Framing every discussion on ownership around them is a waste of time.

You really need to dry your eyes on this. Retro shirts are rarely, if ever, exact replicas of the originals. Mine haven’t arrived yet, but having seen Dean’s on Saturday, if you’re going to complain about the poor printed quality, the badge is the same quality as the one I had in the nineties. What do you want? Quality or accuracy? You can’t have both. Maybe you feel you’ve got neither but the quality is definitely consistent with the shirts of the time. Stamping your feet and demanding a refund over tiny little inaccuracies is pathetic.

I'd like to petition the moderators to add this as an emoji:

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.

To answer Piehutt’s point about my labelling of Gordon Ritchie as arrogant, I’m not going to kid on I’m not privy to the odd wee titbit of information from mates, but it’s up to them to share it with the wider public if they feel the need to. That said, I’ve already alluded on this thread to what I believe to be his quite appalling treatment of Christopher Dodds at Montrose in May, when he apparently threatened to withdraw all his media privileges as a result of Christopher’s criticisms of Captain Calamity Sean McGinty the previous week. On a number of levels, this is just wrong. There’s been a big story about Rangers charging the media £25,000 a season for access and how this is their way of controlling negative output. I fail to see a difference here, other than scale. Do we really want to see the Tele being forced into avoiding criticism for fear of being banned? I’m sorry, but unlike the Rangers support, who seem to see criticism as a personal slight, rather than necessary on occasion, I want to see my club taken to task when things go wrong. It also begs the question as to whether Roger Graham or Jonathan Mitchell, two experienced journalists who had built up a bit of currency in their roles would have been treated in such a way. If not, I’d suggest this behaviour is tantamount to the bullying of a young boy at the early stages of his career, and is quite frankly shameful. I didn’t like a lot of things that the Raes did in their twenty years at the helm, and made my opinions known at the time. But ultimately, it was their club and if I wasn’t happy, nobody was forcing me to support the club. A fan owned club though, should in my opinion hold itself to higher standards as they are responsible to every one of their members and supporters- the people whose money has put them in the position they occupy. I was a bit late to the party when joining MCT as I initially had my misgivings, but I certainly don’t recall being asked to vote for Gordon Ritchie. Others may have been, before I joined up, but in the spirit of democracy, I’d urge everyone to ensure he’s not given another spell in office at either MCT or Morton themselves.

Cadden scores hat-trick for Forest Green but best of all Bombscare McGintys' og fucks up Hopkins weekend.

Incorrect.

He hasn’t, he’s moved to Dundee.

How did he manage to beat John369 to the exclusive?

The silence of Barr and Robinson (OUR reps on the Morton board) is telling. As I stated before, there are things that I know but cannot disclose due to board confidentiality. I have given this matter much thought, and I am now publicly asking our reps to publish the minutes of the Morton board meeting in December 2023. I am also asking for them to indicate what happened to the 6 year deal that Dalrada signed and announced at an earlier AGM. Finally, I ask them to confirm what, if any. assurances Dalrada made about a notice period being given for the ending of the sponsorship deal. These are the type of things that our MCT board members should have asked before blindly accepting the proposal and recommending it to members. I know that Barr reads this forum regularly. Tell the members the truth.

96th minute winner by Robbie Muirhead to CRUSH the title dreams of big-spending Ayr United. Terrible, wee shame that.

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/24887504.lamar-reynolds-hopes-goal-can-repay-newfound-morton-family/ Lamar Reynolds' brother died a few months ago, so as well as trying to settle in hundreds of miles from home he's been dealing with that, including arranging for the funeral out in Jamaica. Horrible stuff. I'm glad he's enjoying his time here, he more than earned his goal at Hampden. Here's to many more.

Well given that the ITK crowd originally claimed that Strapp re-signing for the club was, err, Strapp's agent/chairman going over Dougie's head*, I think we can file this nonsense in the bin where it belongs. Unless Kelly has a functioning, 4D chess explanation of how those two entirely contradictory claims about politics at work within the club tie together. We will never have a functioning and successful football club while everyone from former employees, player's maws to taxi drivers in the street think that they have licence to stick their oar in at every opportunity. I don't know *how* that issue is resolved, but it is absolutely toxic to fan ownership and far more infuriating to me than whether any player does or does not re-sign a new contract. We can't even replace a goalkeeper coach without it being treated like the next Horizon-Post Office scandal by these tiresome attention-seekers. * That was naturally going to lead to a bust-up and the manager's resignation.

SLO has said on twitter he has collected complaints from fans about the club only allowing MCT members to vote on the away kit vote. Don't see why this is a problem? These are exactly the sort of small inducements they should be making to encourage membership.