SpoonTon

Ledger going is the right decision (if we made that decision). He's the weakest of the centre backs and offers nothing moving out from the right back position. Perhaps he and Russell decided to go because they wouldn't have been regular starters. Russell was potentially a good replacement for Strapp if he could regularly play at his best (he was actually pretty decent in most of his games, even if he had a couple of nightmares). Hopefully Strapp stays. The most surprising thing here is that Oliver isn't part of this list. He's not without his strengths, but hasn't done enough to really justify being kept on in any particular role. We need to shift McGrattan, Easdale, and Jacobs to justify keeping Blues and Muirhead. That being said, we wouldn't want to put any of our sponsorship deals in danger... Imrie has perhaps sounded out quite a few players already, and is wary about the quality of players he's going to be able to attract to the club.

Sam Ramsbottom, Kalvin Orsi, and Joe McKee watch on as Gregor Buchanan (own goal) and Ross MacLean help Dumbarton towards League Two. That's almost walking football there. No wonder so many of these guys come up here and look so far off being ready for competitive football.

Yeah, there's a risk with McLean and I'm not saying I'd necessarily want him kept on (particularly because of that injury record). But he's more secure at the back than Ledger, and has a far greater influence on those around him. I don't think it's surprising that our defence has been better with him in the team. My point is more that that he shows up how far off the level required that Ledger is (who I don't think has covered either position well this season, which has been disappointing). With Hynes being here for another year we might need to go with him as short term cover at right back, but I think we need better cover at centre half than Ledger.

Like others have said, it's difficult to make judgements without knowing details of how much of the budget is being taken up. I don't think there's much of a decent argument for keeping Ledger. The goal at Arbroath is typical of how his season has gone. Oliver has also been disappointing. There's flashes of the player he can be, but not enough. Unfortunately Jacobs, McGrattan, Easdale and Hynes are still under contract. I think there are better arguments for the remaining players. Muirhead had been effective backup, but it depends on how much of the budget he takes up. Ugwu and Reilly are both good enough when at their best. Blues can be effective at what he does well, but we already have midfield backup. McLean, despite making some errors, has been our best defender much of the time he's played (and is much better centre half backup than Ledger). I'd keep Brandon but that might be expensive. Russell, on form, is good backup and possibly a good replacement for Strapp (but I also have a nagging uncertainty there). Strapp and Hamilton are no-brainers for me, same with Wilson. The young players are probably better out on loan for a while.

On the other hand, if we had VAR on Saturday we'd all still be at Cappielow waiting for the match to finish after the amount of checks that would have been needed. I know it won't be at our level, but that was a top level ref. The level of refereeing better improve, or VAR will make things very messy. I'm generally in favour of VAR, but it has to be implemented really well or it makes the game worse (and general rules also need to be adjusted - the spirit of the offside rule, for example, has been lost in the showing off of technology). It's probably something that needs to be done in Scottish football, but I don't have confidence that it will actually improve things.

Not really looking forward to the wider public catching on to the Hamilton result and having to be reminded of that again and again. Bad for Shiels, but also not great for Morton if it makes the national news. If only Shiels didn't have the habit of becoming such an emotional wreck after losing games...

I thought the options looked alright - will probably vote for one of the yellow ones.

New take on a lump of coal in the stocking.

Incredibly odd. There needs to be some reflection and a proper process. It doesn't need to a lengthy process, but it would feel like a mistake to rush to an uninspiring choice.

To be fair, the biggest criticism there is that he's had to spend so much time and energy getting the club back up to a minimal standard. Most of this stuff should have been prepared and ready to go before the summer. He's started from a low base. That being said, it's time to build on this and start getting some other issues sorted. And more than anything else, there's needs to be a completely different attitude fostered by the club. We desperately need some optimism and ambition.

Gus was Technical Director at St Mirren - a role aimed at boosting football expertise in the running of a football club and helping to create a more stable vision for the running of a football club. If the club's big aim was longer term stability, as they suggested, then it would make sense to appoint some like Gus in a role like that. There's no guarantee of success, and you'd need to put the financial structure in place to afford it, but it makes sense given what they said. As it is, Gus was the type of manager I thought it was sensible to appoint - he was someone I had in mind before we appointed him, I have no complaints in that regard. He didn't impress last season, as far as our performances on the park went, but I can understand looking for stability and continuity given they were so new to running a football club. The only thing I don't understand or agree with is the two year deal. It doesn't make sense and hasn't been explained in any logical way. There's no stability if results are rubbish, fans (or players) turn on a manager, or you get relegated - that's an awful lot of turbulence surrounding a manager who is on a 2 year deal. The only point I made earlier is that having a DoF or Technical Director would help keep a bit of stability - if that's the aim. Otherwise, appoint someone like Gus as manager made sense, absolutely, but you cannot force stability by giving him a two year deal - that seems naïve. As an aside, on Craig Levein - I think the bigger problem there was moving him to the role as manager. He had ups and downs in his other role, that's a much bigger debate, but there are certainly benefits to having someone in a role like that.

I didn't get around to watching the Q&A until yesterday, which probably shows what my expectations were for it - and I got pretty much what I expected. I have to say, never, ever say that your aim is 8th (especially for a club who are so established at this level). Build, consolidate, progress, improve - there are other ways of putting your aims which come across much better. The aim of the club should very much be to push up as high up the table as possible and look to build a better squad - maybe that means accepting 8th at the end of this season, maybe it doesn't. I don't think many would be satisfied with that. The word 'stability' was the word I expected with reference to the two year deal - I still suspect that Gus himself was able to convince them on that one. Dunning has already explained exactly why it's just so wrongheaded. I tend to think if they wanted stability, in that sense, then they could have appointed a director of football and then a head coach. A sense of stability and continuity can be built through having a solid structure at the club, and members of staff who are there for the long term. You can't build stability by giving a long term deal to such a pivotal role which is always going to be the biggest single thing that can be changed if things go wrong. To give both MacPherson and Millen two years deals isn't the way to build stability. I mean, 'To give the club stability and experience as we transition into community ownership' - then appoint a director of football on a two year deal, appoint a head coach, and come up with a plan for affording other coaches around that. Don't focus everything on a manager and his assistant. It does make me feel that there aren't enough good footballing heads around the board. It's one thing to want expertise in other fields in the hope of skill transferability, but I doubt any lawyer would want a car salesman as his new partner at a law firm, even if he is very successful at his own job. I think something which is frustrating fans is that feeling that they don't really understand football well enough. Which they may feel is harsh, and rightly point out that most other fans don't either, but they need to improve quickly on that one. As I've said before, I'm very willing to be patient as they grow into this - but I do hope that they are humble and honest enough to address mistakes and improve the way in which they are doing things.

Why is this a disaster?

I didn't expect MCT to come in and be immediately great at running a football club. Dougie ran the club for many years and was never really great at it. Crawford had been about the club for years and he was abysmal at it. I'm willing to be patient because there isn't an alternative our there right now. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be questioning and criticism. Morton still seem as leaderless as we were under Crawford, and there are still loads of little issues which all add up. I think that constructive criticism and guidance is important at this point. There are some murmurings that perhaps some of this isn't being taken on board. I'm out of the loop here - I have no idea what is being meant by certain people being arrogant or others being ignored or whatever else. I simply have no details to actually make a judgement on any of this. For me, I'm happy to judge progress over the next few months and what emerges over the course of the season in terms of the club as a whole. This isn't a free pass, but unless there is clear evidence that something fundamental will prevent progress I think it's fair to allow those at MCT to start to grow into the running of the club. I'd have been shocked if they came in and were immediately organised and actually really good at it.

Dear Members, We hope that those of you at yesterday’s game enjoyed being back with less restrictions, despite the extremely disappointing result. It was great to see 1429 people back in Cappielow along with 291 tuning in to the TonTV stream. We are also aware that the current ticketing situation is not good enough for a football club in 2021, and will be working on longer term solutions to improve this significantly. Attention now switches to our next match next Saturday at Firhill to face Partick Thistle in the cinch Championship. For the women's team, it was a much more positive weekend and it was great to see them kick start their season with a 6-1 win over Aidrie today. On off-field matters, we thank everyone for your ongoing patience as we work to get the deal finalised. There is not a huge amount to update on in terms of significant changes in the situation, but work continues to be carried out by our lawyers to push us closer to completion. We will continue to provide these weekly updates to members and provide you with information around ongoing progress. AGM A reminder that the MCT AGM will take place at 7pm on Monday 13th September. For those of you wishing to attend in person or online please register by clicking here and following the instructions. Please ensure you select the correct ticket when registering. Thanks, MCT Comms Team

The price of season tickets was cut significantly that season, by about a third if I remember correctly. It helped get fans in and maintain the crowd numbers a bit, but financially it was a real miscalculation. Cut prices and a three year plan for promotion, which were dumped after about a month.

To be fair, the club did state over a week ago that 'There will be no need to purchase your ticket in advance.' There's certainly a clarity of communication issue. The club could have stated again, in a clear, concise message, at the beginning of this week that tickets can be purchased at the ground in the usual way up until kick off. I think that would've helped.

I think interstadia have binned themselves, but we're still stuck using their system anyway. Hopefully a solution can be found soon, because it seems like the lights are out at interstadia (and they were very dim to begin with).

Yeah, I realise I was being a bit simplistic and imprecise. I did add in the word legal to try to cover myself on that one, but I do admit that I'm not particularly accurate with what I wrote. I meant that while the old process of registration was basically an updating of the old register (registering the passing of the deeds and other relevant information), it now has to be translated into the new land register (involving a standardised map rather than relying on descriptions, drawings, maps, etc. which belonged to the deeds/registrations). Again, I apologise for my shoddy terminology and being too simplistic but I think my point is there. And, honestly, feel free to correct me wherever I'm wrong. As I said, I'm not an expert and have only had limited experiences of such registrations.

Yeah, I'm not an expert on this but as far as I'm aware you're on the right point here. There have been major changes to Land Registration in Scotland since the last time Cappielow changed hands. I think, in basic terms, now when land is transferred it has to be registered with the land registry in Scotland, so it's no longer just the legal process of passing over old title deeds - it has to go to the land registry and, as you say, be clearly mapped out anew so there is no (or as little as possible) ambiguity.

Yeah, but that also gives me the fear. Hopefully he signs for someone else soon.

It was Allan Creer that came to my mind. Could be either from the description!

The game against Ayr was our 10th in a row without a win - it was hardly a knee-jerk reaction. The fact that we happened to beat ICT after making the decision hardly points to McElhone guiding us to safety - just like Gus winning a couple of weeks later didn't lead to him managing that. We happened to pick up a few wins here and there over the season, but no manager did well enough. We weren't good enough throughout the season. No manager was a success. If there was one particular decision that caused us a problem after the initial squad building disaster, it was putting a coach in charge who didn't even want the job rather than having a proper recruitment process when Hopkin left.

From my understanding that's close to the truth, but not quite right. It's not really clear cut either way, I don't think. Certainly when it comes to GMFC and GC not much has really been clear cut. I think it spent time in a separate entity, but only for a while and that entity was under the name of Morton, not GC. I think the purpose of the land had always been intended for Morton's use, but it's intention as a longer term investment has always been sketchier. There has always been a level of uncertainty there - and that uncertainty was what we were left with after Dougie passed away. He was Morton, he was GC, and while he lived it was all just that. I think this is the inevitable conclusion of the uncertainty left behind in all that - a division of what he was.

My initial impression is this is as good a deal as we're going to get. Golden Casket keep the car park but we get the rest. It is what it is. This seemed to be the most obvious solution from the start.