SpoonTon

I don't think it's something he should be saying. I don't think it's helpful. You tell me.

Again, I think you have me down as defending way more than I actually have. To be fair, others have done that as well (I'm not sure why anyone would assume from what I said that I thought Murray didn't make a mess of last season, for example). I criticised Murray's interview before the East Fife game for it's tone and, while I know more than I did then and have a better understanding of the situation as a whole, it doesn't mean I've changed my mind on that. But I also don't agree with every single criticism and, again, I'm fine with that.

Saint Ian, Really? Has it annoyed you so much that I had a different point of view? I said that the lack of friendlies wasn't Murray's fault because of the utter chaos behind the scenes. Maybe it's true that he was just too lazy/incompetent to find x number of trialists in x days (I don't think any of us know the details), I wasn't there. I happen to have the view that something wasn't his fault and all of a sudden I'm defender of everything Murray. Why would it be so black and white? I was as critical as anyone of Murray at the end of last season and I'm certainly not his cheerleader now. But I also don't see things in exactly the same way as others right now. I'm ok with that.

That's just speculation and guesswork. Was that also why Imrie went from injury crisis to injury crisis in his time with us?

Imrie fell out with the club half the summers he was here, and usually had a terrible start to the season. He also had to put up with shifting budgets and some turmoil behind the scenes. I don't think Murray's done a good job as Morton manager so far, but I also think some of the criticism is unfair. People love an object of derision to offload their feelings onto in hard times...

Why?

That's not Murray's fault, though, which I've seen people say. We didn't have enough players to have a proper preseason. I'm not going to say that I agree with every signing, but I do think we're in a very difficult position. Especially because there should be additional funding down the road if Dalrada pay up, and we have to take a longer view on putting together the squad. If you're missing 6 or 7 first team players and been denied (what, 3 or 4?) first team signings due to issues with the main sponsor then it's going to be a struggle.

I mostly agree (Savoury is capable and hopefully Gorman is too), and that's why the Dalrada mess had been so debilitating. What we're lumped with spending on Brophy is never going to be a sensible return for us. And we're short of a proper left back and wingers/forwards, mostly because of the knock on of Dalrada not paying up.

By the second half yesterday, we were without Wilson, Cochrane, Longridge, Ballantyne and Savoury (as well as Gorman and Robertson). The Dalrada mess had already left us unable to properly build a squad. What was left in the second half was a mix of players which probably represented a League Two level team at best.

Given the context that he knows the relationship between MCT and the club, it's clear that the whole point is that he's talking about holding the club to account. You might not like the ways he thinks that needs to be done, but I don't think your criticism that he doesn't understand the remit of MCT is valid. I think that's a misunderstanding. What you're saying is that a guy on the initial MCT working team, that's been around the club and has had contacts in MCT, somehow doesn't understand what MCT is. Of course he knows what MCT is (and also knows how dysfunctional the relationship between the two boards has been at times).

George has been involved with MCT since the outset, it would be odd to suggest that he doesn't understand what it is.

Genuinely, we need someone on the MCT board who is committed, knows the club, and is well liked (and can also spot when someone doesn't have the best interests of the club at heart).

To be fair, I find George to be a very likeable guy who cares deeply about the club. I think he's an excellent candidate.

From that description, I can see why they picked him for the full back role. I really liked how he stuck to his task - showed great attitude and discipline.

I'm not a huge fan of the term "natural position". He's 16, maybe full back will become his best position, maybe not. At that age, to make it, players with change positions as often as not. Sometimes it takes time to figure out what is most "natural" for a player. Jim McAlister started out as a winger for us, and played nearly all his football there for us. Fans complained when we tried him on centre mid, but it turns out that that was his best position. Ross Forbes, a left footed centre mid, had his best ever season at right mid. James McPake came to us as a struggling striker and left as a big prospect at centre half. Peter Weatherson was incredible as a lower league right back. Mark Russell started as a winger who was slotted in as a makeshift left back. Black, at his age, isn't going to have the fully developed skillset for any role, and what he does have could be moulded into different things. It's like the old saying, a full back is either a failed winger or a failed centre back. This move is as likely to be the making of him as anything else. Sorry, I know you just meant you wanted to see what he's like in the position he usually plays, but this is one of my bugbears. Feel free to ignore my hang ups