SpoonTon

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.

He had an absolutely awful game at centre back against Brora in the Scottish Cup - it wasn't like he was there taking his chance. He was a bit better when he played in a back 3 and did more sweeping up than one on one defending (which he shirked more often than not). He just didn't play very well for us, including at centre half, and I suspect that was more on him than us. Scott McKenna had a rubbish loan spell at Ayr and was a Scottish international the following season. We all know that sometimes you don't get great performances out of a loan player. It happens. There can be a number of reasons for this, but some loan players simply aren't very committed.

The level of booing that Collins received on his return to Cappielow while playing for Gretna is up there with the loudest negative responses for a returning player. I expected a bit of negativity, but it was really quite something. His return as assistant manager, by all accounts, was very much quieter. Neither has left him very popular with sizeable elements of the Morton support. If he'd had simply left at the end of the 02/03 season, he'd be very fondly remembered by pretty much all the support. But it's difficult to detach that from what followed. Same thing goes for some other previous Morton favourites.

I don't have a huge problem with understanding where this amount is being spent, tbh. We have very little income at the moment, did a terrible job of budgeting for the season, and now have added testing costs as well. Simply put, we'll need this money to get the club to the takeover without adding to it's debt to GC.

Crawford has been chairman for 2 and a half seasons, and we've seen 3 managers jump ship in that time. We didn't even bother to try to recruit a new manager after Hopkin resigned, or a new CEO after MacKinnon left. I'm not going to paint Crawford as the villain, I really don't know all the details, but there is either a question of competence, commitment, or actual control. Budget planning has been a disaster, for example, with significant backtracking in two out of his three seasons. Whatever the motivations, he's made a mess of his leadership of the club. I think it's fair to be skeptical over whether or not Crawford can keep any promises he makes, however well intentioned they might be.

So this is like a safeguard to safeguard us against those who are meant to be safeguarding us? So that they don't sell us out to some longer term land investor/speculator for an appropriate fee in the event that they decide not to care about us anymore? But not the car park, because they don't see this as the same thing?

Do the people behind the balance of decision making power at GC really care about Morton? While Crawford might have some sentiment for the club, and a desire not to see his father's legacy be tarnished too much, how much can that be said of GC as a whole? How did they come to a decision that they want to safeguard the future of the club? Why are the so silent on the issue? There are too many nagging questions, but even MCT hardly give a glowing assessment of the options. There are some real worries in the outline of their points, for example: It may also be possible to build in a clause that would give us first option to buy, should Golden Casket ever decide to sell the stadium, and this detail would be included in the lawyer discussions. The argument for this arrangement from Golden Casket is that if Morton experience financial difficulties going forward, the stadium would be safe from creditors or administrators. What does it mean by 'should Golden Casket ever decide to sell the stadium'? Does this mean that they could end the lease to sell the stadium and would a first option simply mean to buy at whatever the land might be valued at? How are we supposed to read 'the argument for...from Golden Casket'? It doesn't sound like MCT are convinced that this is also their own argument for this. And on option two, why separate the ground from the stadium? Is this because they want to keep the option open of selling the car park land? And is the point here not that what they really want is some of the GC money which Dougie spent on the club, so that if anyone with money ever wanted to buy the club or if the land ever became more valuable then they would get their cut? In either scenario is seems like GC want something more than securing the future of the club, indeed, it's easy to read a hint of bitterness that so much of 'their' money was spent on Morton over the years. I know there are many questions on the details, but there are more fundamental unanswered questions about intention.

There are other options to safeguard the ground in the event that things go wrong. I would say that my general unease here is that Golden Casket still want to retain something - why do they need to be the third party safeguarding the club? There's just something about it which doesn't sit right.

What does this mean, exactly? The manager resigned last week because we needed to cut costs. Will we still need to look to offload players in January? In what circumstances could we afford to hire a new manager? There are a number of questions which the club could at least help clarify in some way. I'm guessing the bottom line is that GC will underwrite what they absolutely have to, if they have to. I think the main frustration is that, for the second time in three seasons, we've had to look to significantly cut costs only weeks after the start of the season. It's not a good way to run a business, particularly for staff who have been hit with uncertainty but also for fans who are understandably worried about the future of the club (after all, we have been told to worry about that). It's obviously encouraging to hear that GC plan to make sure the club remains financially secure, but I do wonder why 'the very future of the club' was at stake last week but this week not so much. It does raise questions about how the club is being run and what they view exactly as their obligations. I think what many fans need to hear from GC is exactly the opposite of what people like you have been saying on here in the past week. Precisely that costs incurred in running GMFC is the responsibility of GC and no financial underwriting, or any debt, will be held against MCT (in the sense of a financially based transaction, i.e. retaining the ground because it is an asset) in negotiations over the transfer of the club. I want to hear that GC has no interest in any substantial financial gain from GMFC or the land it will still hold in the future (and, for that matter, why it has to be specifically they hold safeguard the ground). The fact is that we know from the experience two years ago that Crawford's will is not always aligned with others with control at GC. We all know that the details that we don't yet know will be very important but there's certainly more that could be done to build bridges with fans (at a time, for financial reasons, that this is very important). To be clear, I'm not usually on this side of the debate. It's particularly been those on here talking up the ground as such an asset which has started the alarm bells ringing.

McKee himself is defending a performance at that level in the interview by saying it was his first full season. I think that's a good example of what I was talking about, he had some ability but struggled to adjust to the demands of the game at that level. I very much doubt we would've gone up if we hadn't signed Forbes and McKee stayed in the team. There are loads of young players who have been a teams like that who never play for the first team. It was naive of him to think he was ready for the first team. He's far from alone in that. It's understandable, but there are too many young players who don't appreciate just how far away they are from being ready for first team football. I agree, but they also need to be realistic about their ability. Having a good understanding of where you and how far you need to go is very important. I think McKee himself acknowledges this: I was of the belief I should have been playing in the first-team. You just don’t appreciate the level you are it when you’re that young.

McKee played well for us towards the end of his time with us, but that was really the only period of time that he actually looked the part. He was one of many, many players we've had over the years who have been "neat" midfield players with signs of technical ability but nothing like the all round attributes to be a consistent performer at this kind of level. It's no surprise that he struggled at Carlisle and Falkirk and ended up back in League One last season. Maybe he's improved at Dumbarton and will come back to haunt us this season - who knows. His story is a very common one. A young player who had an overinflated idea of how good he was and little idea of what it actually takes to play at a decent level. It's very telling that he thought he should be playing Championship level in England and a couple of years later struggling to adjust to football at League One level in Scotland.

When he says that he was surprised that the League One and Two clubs wanted to play the season, he actually means he's gutted because he can't cry about being shut out of football (and try to claim a place in the Championship). Embarrassing stuff from him.

Kyle is surely the worst player ever to get 10 Scotland caps? It took the best part of a year for Vogts to realise that McFadden and Miller were our up and coming young forwards and not Kyle and Dobie. Such a frustrating time.

I'm with you on the longer term cynicism about the figures. Absolutely. In the context of the figures presented in recent years, the big loss makes sense. The average attendance went down from 1986 in 17/18 to 1943 in 18/19, despite the big drop in season ticket cost and much higher season ticket sales - this must have created a significant drop in sales income. It was 2362 in 16/17 and 2731 in 15/16. The drop is nearly completely down to the drop in away supports (the home support actually increased in 18/19). This season so far it's 1617 - which is more down to a drop in the home support. But I'd guess last year's price drop might have still been more costly that this year's drop in attendance. We got knocked out of the League Cup by Ayr and Partick, the Challenge Cup by Dumbarton, and the Scottish Cup at East Fife (after being dragged up to a replay by Peterhead). I wouldn't be surprised if we managed to make a loss in the cups. We struggled to make an overall profit in the year that we made the semi final of the League Cup, had a Scottish Cup game at Ibrox, and finished in the playoffs. Players like Millar, Johnstone, McAlister, Tidser, Telfer, and Buchanan would've been on decent salaries. We overspent. The club has made that clear. In that context, the massive loss makes sense. Like you, I still don't think the longer term figures make sense (when we were throwing money about for Templeman, etc, and making less of a loss than last season) but last year was a bit of a disaster. I think 16/17 has been the only season that could actually be described as sustainable.