dunning1874

Have they? Was there anything that specifically required a statement before now? That's said without knowing how long Dalrada's payments have been outstanding, but it appears this has come out now in response to the uproar after the two results this week (which could have been avoided by a competent manager regardless of the reduced budget).

The headline news from that is Dalrada being late with payments, again. By the sounds of that the club, already having a reduced budget, are having to hold back money they could otherwise have spent because they don't know when Dalrada are going to pay what they owe. That's completely unacceptable, last summer they started an extremely public bunfight that did massive harm to the club's reputation in order to insist on the presence of several board members who would otherwise have been forced out there and then, in return for large sums of money. While the continued incompetence of their chosen board members has seen them all fall by the wayside, we now find out they haven't even paid all the money they've committed to.

Okay, capital expenditure to improve facilities and generate long term revenue is far harder to fund without a private backer, yes. That's exactly what the Estrella deal is for though, trying to bring that investment in without the ridiculous strings Dalrada attached that money had to be wasted on players. Maybe it won't be enough money, maybe they'll be the wrong investors, but the club have tried to attract investment and this is the interested party we've got.

How is "spend only what we bring in and hope we punch above the weight of the budget on the park" an idealistic pipe dream which needs examples, when it's the exact thing Morton have successfully done in four years of the last five? While your alternative plan of selling up to an unidentified billionaire who definitely exists, definitely wants to spend their money on Morton with no strings attached, and won't saddle the club with debt or take land away is not a pipe dream which needs examples, but hard nosed common sense? Only one of these suggestions is completely failing to acknowledge the reality of where Morton are in 2026.

If it turns out to be true then I'll turn my criticism to the board and take back what I'm about to say about Murray, but by far the most credible explanation for his comment that we might not sign anyone else and it's up the board to give him more money is that he's telling absurd lies to save his own skin. His gross incompetence as a manager could be marginally less annoying if he wasn't simultaneously proving himself to be a Jim McInally level charlatan who'll happily burn the club down around him in order to find someone else to blame for his own failures. The day before the Linlithgow game he was in the Tele openly talking about more recruitment, without the slightest suggestion that we were done. Then we lose twice in four days leading to entirely merited criticism of Murray for overseeing such poor performances and results, and all of a sudden this is what we've got to work with, don't criticise me, ask the board about more signings. It's a deflection tactic. If we were actually done for signings and the budget was now completely gone, why would he have used his last pennies on an 18 year old central midfielder - described by Murray himself as one for the future who we'll look to loan out - when we already have another five central midfielders, but only have four defenders and one goalkeeper? If it was true that the last of the budget had actually gone on O'Toole then it would be wild on Murray's part to misuse his budget in that way, but in reality even he isn't that incompetent: it just isn't true. He is shamelessly trying to gaslight the support into blaming anyone but himself, because he's already given up on being capable of getting results with Morton. Every word is calculated to try to protect his reputation so there's the least harm possible to Ian Murray's future job prospects whenever he finally departs Morton. The possibility that his reputation could be protected by actually trying to do a good job here in the first place has already been disregarded by him, so settle in for several more weeks of him lashing out and taking absolutely no responsibility for a mess of his own making.

I absolutely don't want it to be Miller, for the record.

Realistically we're probably stuck with an internal appointment when he goes as well which won't be popular, but rolling the dice on whichever of Gary Miller or a senior player is next in line while the window is open is still an obviously less bad option than the 0 points from 36 games he has us heading for.

Which also makes it much harder to have any sympathy for Murray complaining about the budget. Yes, it's undoubtedly the smallest full-time budget in the division, but it's still obviously better than Stenhousemuir, Linlithgow and East Fife. How much money has he cost the club through his own incompetence which could instead have been in his wage budget if he hadn't lost all of these games?

It's apparent that deflecting blame for this mess in the hope of salvaging any of his reputation once he's inevitably sacked is more important to Murray to actually trying to do anything to avoid the mess in the first place. Any excuse he can give that makes it someone else's fault will be trotted out. He can't get more out of players than the sum of their parts, he can't set a team up to shitfest to grind results out, he can't recruit to address the weaknesses and he can't acknowledge any of those facts. It's simply impossible for this to get better until he goes.

Not to mention that the Easdales already were involved with Morton in the recent past, pulling their sponsorship and ceasing all involvement as soon as they didn't have a family member on the playing staff.

They're actively engaging with someone buying 35% of the club right now.

Yep, our league positions under fan ownership have on average actually been better than they were while making a six figure loss under private ownership. Obviously the budget doesn't help, but the primary reason we've become relegation favourites this season is Ian Murray being shite at this where his predecessor wasn't.

No chance he genuinely believes it, but he'll say whatever bullshit he can to deflect from his own failings. A refusal to take any responsibility is par for the course.

Moore was given the new contract in early March and absolutely no one was disappointed about that, it was met with universal praise because at the time we were more concerned about not being able to keep him as he'd likely have better offers having had a really good season up to that point. He was the first player to sign a new deal, that wasn't a Dalrada decision, it was wanting to keep him because he was good. That he went off a cliff in the following two months to the point that he didn't look good enough for the division and continued where he left off yesterday maybe suggests some complacency on his part having received a contract, but it's mostly testament to Ian Murray's ability to have everything he touches turn to shit.

2 games in - Murray's choice, we could have played more friendlies Squad turnover - Murray's choice, we could have retained better defenders than those we're playing like Owens Inexperienced players - Murray's choice, no one's making you sign 'Laiith' Remember when 99% of fans derided Davie Irons for saying he only needed 45 minutes to realise some trialists were pish and wouldn't get a contract? He has once again been vindicated, no one should have needed more than 20 to know that Laiith Fairnie is going straight into in the worst Morton XI of the century. Genuinely levels below Henk Van Schaik.

Starting to think the shape last season wasn't the problem as much as an Ian Murray team being passive shite regardless of how they're set up. This is very bad, we've had the best chance with Brophy's shot being blocked by Gorman but Linlithgow are the better team here.

Narrow 4-4-2? If nothing else, encouraged by a willingness to change from 4-2-3-1 when wingers are available.

That feels like an alarm bell that we're not signing another goalkeeper after all, unless it's poorly worded and they mean that he's only being recalled on an emergency basis while we've only got one signed (you're allowed to do that with keepers).

Murray explicitly says there "The plan is to continue working with him and, hopefully, get him out on loan to play regular first-team football" so maybe it's taking a miniscule sum out of the budget once they get his wage covered; oddly more okay with that than I would be signing him to be part of the first team immediately, because central midfield is now the last place we need signings.

While you could theoretically have Ballantyne move across to left back, it wouldn't make any sense for Murray to say we're not in a position to sign another left sided defender due to needing to prioritise other areas of rhe squad, then sign a player who can only play right back and nowhere else and would obviously command a proper first team wage rather than being a cheap youngster, when we already have a better right back who's not as good when he switches to left back. While we do need cover at right back that doesn't involve removing Wilson from the midfield or hoping Gillespie gets by there, that would seem like a waste of resources.

Was it actually a 4-3-3 like this with all three properly playing in central midfield and Cochrane going box to box, or was it more like the 4-2-3-1 with Cochrane up with Garrity & McLuckie? I know it's possible to get too caught up in the formation and there might not be a huge difference between the two anyway, but interested to see if we're actually going to have some tweaks now it's Murray's own squad rather than rigidly sticking with one shape no matter what.

McHugh and Baird had both been at Falkirk in 16/17, we signed McHugh in the summer of 17 then Baird on loan from Inverness in February 18. We did play Falkirk away with them as a front two (a Duffy classic, 3-0 down at half-time and didn't make a single sub in the game). Other players with Falkirk connections we signed that summer were Luca Gasparotto (signed from them) and Darren Barr, but no strikers.

No argument from me about Longridge. I'd missed this in the Tele so went back and had a look. 23rd June had the following comments on Delaney and MacPherson: It is a weird thing for Murray to say, because it's not like we didn't make Delaney an offer. He says we couldn't economically justify it, what if he'd accepted what we offered then? Was the offer on massively reduced terms that would be more befitting for a young ringer than a guy who was first choice for the last two years, which we never expected him to accept anyway? In tandem with that you'd assume this being said 12 days ago means that we have now moved on from MacPherson and accepted that's definitely not happening now as those comments predate signing both Cochrane & Sandilands. Adding another central midfielder in MacPherson to the currently signed options while saying we can't afford to sign another starting left sided defender whether at centre back or left back would be approaching Hopkin levels of wildly imbalanced squad building, so presumably that's us finished in midfield. I note that in another article he's also said that Fairnie can play centre back or left back, so maybe he sees that as his two options. We're going to have to hope whatever young loanee we get to pad out the defence (and we still have no right back cover beyond moving Wilson or Gillespie back so we could really do with someone who can cover there) turns out to be a gem.

10 league goals from midfield as a 20 year old is very impressive. Wonder how he's planned to be used though, an alternative to Savoury, Savoury being used out wide instead, or (perish the thought) not playing 4-2-3-1 at all? Surely Wilson and Cochrane are pretty much guaranteed names on the teamsheet and it's not going to be a case of Sandilands in beside Cochrane with Wilson in defence again...

Dunfermline's loss was spending on jobbers, yes. Even in their League One season they lost £1M, seeing what the loss increased to last season now they have the entirely legitimate cryptobro throwing money around will be interesting. For us, worth noting that £40K loss came on the back of two profits and Dale Pryde-McDonald said at the start of that season we were budgeting a loss to allow Imrie an increased budget. Would be very interested to see what last season ended up with considering all the issues in the summer followed by ultimately having an increased budget only to end up finishing 8th.