Greacen2000

sorry you have completely lost me here. what exactly is your point about Paul Tisdale and what relevance does it have to this discussion? I get that things like player recruitment etc are now under the remit of the DoF where in the olden days it would solely have been the job of the manager, but nobody is talking about that here.

Do you actually think Tisdale has ever had anything to do with organising training sessions or selecting the team? You explicitly mentioned Maloney & Fotheringham taking training sessions as an example of why we shouldn't care about exactly who is doing what when it comes to running the first team (something that O'Neill had full responsibility for during his time at Celtic). Not sure what relevance Tisdale has to this conversation. Once again and just to be 100% clear - I am fine with different responsibilities being assigned to different roles. I am just very confused as to where that division of responsibilities lies in our current & proposed future setup.

Imrie was the manager and it was abundantly clear that he was the man responsible for picking the team. why would anyone have questioned it at the time??? Things have changed though - Imrie left and we have had a period of 3 weeks where the technical head coach presumably has been selecting the team, and we have now been told that "a coach"(not a new manager or a head coach) will be recruited to work with said technical head coach. It is perfectly reasonable to seek clarification on roles & responsibilities. It doesn't matter - what matters is who has responsibility for these tasks. O'Neill was quite clearly & unambiguously the manager. He had full responsibility and chose to delegate those responsibilities to his coaches. The same was the case here when Imrie was the manager. It feels like we are now going in a different direction (which I am fine with), but nothing coming out of the club has went any way towards clarifying the situation. Quite the opposite in fact Since you are so adamant that everything here is totally normal and not at all confusing, why would it be unclear to any potential candidates?

This is exactly where my head went to after reading this latest statement. I wasn't going to mention it on here as it was based on nothing other than vibes but since you guys have mentioned the name I will too. At this stage I would be amazed if we appoint anyone other than him

My relief at the club finally issuing an update quickly turned to frustration when the opaque nature of the statement became apparent. All that is being asked for here is clarity on the following points What is the nature of Davies technical head coach role - is it an assistant/co-manager type thing (as seemed to be the case during Imries time), is it a DoF/technical director/performance director who will sit between head coach & board in the org structure (as might be suggested by the current state of affairs), or is it some sort of mentor to help develop a newly appointed rookie coach into Morton Manager material (or maybe a combination of a couple of these)? How long do we expect Davies to be here for? The statement mentions until the end of the season - does this mean he will be leaving? If so then it might not be good from a medium-long term strategy pov to have him acting in a DoF type role (if that is even what he is doing). If on the other hand it is to be some sort of mentor to help in "supporting the development of this individual", what is the plan for when he leaves(as 5 months doesn't feel like a lot of time)? What is the role we are recruiting for? the statement just says "an enthusiastic and driven coach to work with Billy during this period". I do not know what this means. I congratulate you on not being confused by this situation and thinking that the clubs comms are adequate, but you seem to be in a minority. I am not against us having a DoF & Head coach type setup, but nowhere has it been stated that this is the intention.

Apparently he once had a bad experience when he took the wrong turnoff and ended up at westferry

I read it more as Davies will be reverting back to his role of "technical head coach" (whatever that is) now, and that Miller will be the interim enthusiastic and driven coach to work with Billy while they work through the shortlist of candidates. I did actually read the clubs previous statements, and at my time of posting the club had not yet issued this update, but thanks for that anyway. I still stand by what I said - the club need to do much better with their communications. Once again this statement leaves us with more questions than answers. Yip that is pretty much what I took from it. It feels like we are heading in the direction of having a Davies in DoF type role with a head coach being recruited to work under him. What remains unclear to me is the meaning behind Davies remaining in his role for the remainder of the season. For a Dof + Head coach setup is to work(if that is what we are getting), it usually would require a bit of a longer term stability in the DoF role, so I would hope that line isn't implying that Davies is off at the end of the season and will just be hanging around to mentor our new raw/ambitious/motivated young head coach until they step up to becoming manager when he leaves the building.

when I saw the link I thought for a second that the club had actually posted a new update. I should have known better than to expect such a thing from them 3 weeks since Imrie left & 2 weeks since the last "update" (which raised just as many questions as answers). This amount of radio silence is totally unacceptable and leaves a vacuum which people will fill with their own speculation & rumors. Taking the time to get the right candidate is all well and good, but is it really too much to expect that they keep the support updated on how the recruitment process is progressing?

sorry, what did I “agree with”, and where/when did I state my agreement? I have no issue whatsoever with the sporting director/performance director/DoF type role. All I’ve said is that “technical head coach” is a made-up job title. Please let me know if you can find a single example from your “plenty of football clubs this century” who have ever appointed a technical head coach

Nowhere have I suggested that Dalrada “should want to buy the club” or that Davies “should want to become the manager”. If he is as you suggested now in a DoF/technical director/performance director type role then let’s see some clarification from the club on the matter. Guy with a made-up job title acting as manager but who doesn’t want the gig full time “due to his loyalty to our previous manager”, while seemingly being involved in planning as to what’s going to happen in January - CHECK ”Chairman” with no formal decision making powers but who claims to be steering the ship and a hard taskmaster, whose position has only remained tenable upon the insistence of our main sponsor - CHECK 90% owner of the club having 25% representation on the board - CHECK Sponsor having more say in the running of the club than the owner - CHECK I would definitely say this is a kafkaesque situation.

It is a truly kafkaesque situation for sure.

To be clear I fully agree that the current situation is a farce, but it’s one that we were left with no alternative but to support at the time, and is certainly not the doing of the current MCT board. Now that the MCT board is comprised of guys whose intentions I trust, as well as relationship between the 2 boards hopefully improving a bit, I think the best course of action is for us to let them do their work - they will come back to the membership when our input is needed, and as Toby mentioned they will provide us with regular updates. If there are any questions or issues in the meantime they are easy to contact and quick to respond.

I’m only paraphrasing what has been claimed in documents shared at the time of the Dalrada deal being considered. I use italics because I do take the truthfulness of this with a pinch of salt, but it is what’s being claimed. Specifically, the FAQ document issued by the interim MCT board on May 21 stated - Why is John Laird still Chairman when the articles prohibit this? The GMFC Board interprets Article 9 as allowing the board to delegate responsibilities, including the appointment of a Club Chair. It is important to clarify that John Laird serves as Chair of the Club, not Chair of the GMFC Board. His role is advisory in nature and does not carry formal decision-making authority. Will John Laird be joining the Board? If not, please explain why? There are currently no plans for John Laird to join the GMFC Board. The board believes his advisory role is the most appropriate structure at this time, allowing him to provide strategic support without assuming formal board responsibilities. Will John Laird be a registered (with Companies House) director of GMFC? No. As John is not a director of the company, he does not require to be and will not be registered as such with Companies House. Is or has John Laird ever been a member of MCT? No, John Laird has never been a member of MCT. MCT members weren't consulted on John Laird's appointment, why is that? The GMFC Board did consult the MCT Board in place at the time regarding John's appointment. As previously noted, John's role is advisory and non-executive. He has never exercised authority independently of the GMFC Board and all decisions have remained within the board's remit. The interim MCT Board have been notified that for as long as Dalrada remain as a principle club partner, they wish to have John Laird as Chair of the Club continuing to provide strategic support. In the past year, how many times has John Laird met with the board (any composition) of MCT? John Laird has met formally with the MCT board on at least four occasions, all of which were approved and known to both parties. In addition, he has held some one-to-one or small-group discussions with members of MCT leadership, all of which were disclosed to the GMFC board. There was, however, one meeting on 25 March which John understood to be a discussion about MCT/GMFC relations. On arrival, it became clear the meeting was not sanctioned by the full MCT board and was instead an attempt to discuss the removal of MCT representatives from the GMFC board without the knowledge of the rest of the MCT Board or GMFC Board. Has John Laird invested any of his own money in the club or MCT? Yes, John Laird has previously personally invested in Greenock Morton FC. The amount and terms of this investment are commercially confidential. Having worked previous as a Football Agent, and with family links to a Football Analytics company, has John Laird declared any conflicts of interest? With regard to the alleged family links to a football analytics company, John has no knowledge of any such connection and is unsure what is being referred to. Regarding his previous work as a football agent, this was addressed at the joint GMFC/MCT Board meeting on the 15th January. John confirmed he has not worked as a football agent for over six years. This was corroborated by Michael Harkins, the club's Financial Director at the time, who was a partner in the firm responsible for John's financial affairs

as a purely advisory role with no decision making power I don’t think there would have been any requirement to put it to MCT. The fact he wasn’t even appointed to the board means it may not even have required a formal vote by the GMFC board. As to the specifics of the exact process of his appointment - it’s a bit of a moot point now as the composition of both boards has changed, and as things currently stand our Dalrada funding deal is conditional on him being in place. This question was raised by myself and others over the summer at the time of the current funding deal being reviewed. The answer given was that “John laird is not a football agent”. Questions remained about his sons involvement in sports consulting & to what extent he had an interest in that, but no clarification was forthcoming.

look at tobys reply in the MCT thread. It is being dealt with. Again, his appointment was agreed upon by both boards in 2023.

Christmas Pop UP Shop & Signing Night takes place this evening! - Greenock Morton FC Nice to see the club putting this sort of thing on - it's a shame it only seems to have been promoted on the day of the event (unless I missed an earlier announcement). Hopefully it is well attended and makes the club a few extra bob from Christmas presents. Sadly I wont be able to make it down as I live out of town and need more than a days notice

Thanks for the update Toby. It’s good to hear that this stuff is in hand, especially when there is so much else going on. I appreciate the time you guys are putting in

I would prefer representatives of our club not to appear on other clubs fan media, but honestly I don't really care too much about him doing this. I am far more concerned with what Davies does while at Cappielow rather than how he spends his spare time. Robbie Muirhead appeared on a Kilmarnock fans podcast while playing for us too - I don't really see this any differently, aside from me being less interested in what Davies has to say here than I was in listening to Muirheads interview. I know you were probably joking, but (aside from a couple of old highlights reels and some party tunes which got a lot of views) most of this guys videos struggle to get over 100 views with the occasional one just scraping the 1k mark so I don't think this appearance will really be doing anything to raise Davies profile or put him in the shop window.

@MCT Team @Toby @BishopBrennan could one of you please advise what the process & timing will be for reviewing current MCT representation on the GMFC board & nominating new rep(s)? I am just a bit concerned that at present only 1 of 4 GMFC board members are MCT reps. Adding Laird into the mix, we effectively have 3 Dalrada nominated people of influence involved in day-to-day running of the club & only 1 from the clubs owner. Secondly, at the time of the Dalrada deal being agreed, a commitment was made to hold a review meeting in January to assess the situation & discuss options. Now that we are into December, it would be good to know when this will be taking place. Thanks

in August the articles were updated to - “The make-up of the GMFC Board shall comprise two members appointed by the majority shareholder (Morton Club Together) two members appointed by the principal club sponsor (Dalrada Technology), and three members mutually agreed between the majority shareholder and the aforesaid principal club sponsor” Although as far as I know nothing has been done since then to update the board membership. At present the board is made up of Graham Barr - MCT appointee Sam Robinson - MCT appointee initially, but I believe he would now be classed as a Dalrada appointee as him remaining on the board was a condition of this seasons funding Paul Farren - stadium director with a background in architecture. Pretty sure he would be classed as one of the “mutually agreed” appointees under the above article. Ross Gourdie - Dalrada appointee So this leaves the current make up of the board as 2 Dalrada, 1 MCT & 1 mutual appointee, with there being an available space for another MCT appointee and a further 2 mutually agreed. The fact that Laird is not actually a member of the board really rankles me.

I’m not conflating the 2 at all. My saying the club need to update us is 100% to do with 3 weeks having passed and us being no further forward.

I could totally understand the club not advertising the role if they have robust succession planning in place - with a shortlist of candidates lined up, maybe already having sounded out some of them, or an intention to promote from within. 3 weeks of radio silence later, it seems unlikely that either is the case so it would definitely be good to get some sort of update from the club at this stage. I saw someone mention on here (possibly in the match thread?) that in hospitality Davies was talking about "big changes coming in January". This would suggest that something is going on behind the scenes. Who knows what it is or when we will find out?

if that is the case then someone is guilty of gross negligence I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up in the frame for a return to Ross County. If not, I would probably put him in the same "meh but better than most of the other names I've heard mentioned" category as Ian Murray

I don't think there is anything wrong with holding someone accountable for their performance. I look forward to our chairperson providing us with a report on the progress he has made in these areas at the next club AGM. If no tangible progress has been made, then I would expect the board to take appropriate action. If the board fail to do so then the ball goes into the court of the clubs owners.