- Popular Post
dunning1874
-
Posts
10748 -
Joined
-
Days Won
188
Posts posted by dunning1874
-
-
Disappointing that details have leaked right off the back of what was a very positive meeting covering a range of issues, when the MCT board were clear that due diligence and negotiations are still being carried out and the identity of the interested party & details of the offer would come when that's complete.
It's intriguing and on the face of it it sounds like they're ostensibly looking to do what Dalrada haven't by directing investment towards infrastructure rather than the first-team, which is the correct way to put the club in a healthier position and leave a legacy of a stronger club. However we can only sell the shares and retain majority control once so need to get it right. Interested to see the finer details once they're shared with members.
8 hours ago, Pedrodelawasp said:As i’m sure many were thinking after the announcement of Dalrada’s planned withdrawal, I wasn’t sure many proposals of similar funding would be forthcoming. So, it’s heartening to hear this soon of the potential for investment that may match or increase the final year of the current agreement.
Perhaps there’s even scope to build income further if shirt sponsorship and stadium naming rights aren’t factored in to the proposal, though obviously that level of detail will rightly be held until members are briefed prior to the vote on 6th March.
Worth noting that there was a comment from the board to the effect of (I can't remember the exact quote) "it's not Dalrada level money", so the suggestion of £1M over three years that's appeared with the leak would seem to be inflated on that basis.
Whatever the sum is though, using the money you have smartly is better than having more and wasting it all on a larger squad.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, dunning1874 said:
if anyone is going to leave on loan now he's the obvious candidate.
Or not. Robertson on loan to East Kilbride.
Considering that he's not made an appearance under Murray and that's with Wilson being needed in defence, Taylor injured, Crawford not appearing in either league game and Lyall & MacPherson each missing a game too, we didn't need that many central midfielders.
You wonder if Firhill was a really bad first impression with Murray in the stand, while Shaw was the main culprit Robertson didn't look clever defensively at all having came on at 2-1 up. Some game time at a lower level to learn a bit more of the defensive side of the game might be exactly what he needs, although East Kilbride doesn't seem the best environment for a young player to walk into.
-
O'Halloran starting all three of Murray's games so far while Garrity & Moffat have started two and Shaw has only had sub appearances suggests he is at the bottom of Murray's pecking order, and only coming on in the 91st minute on Saturday tells you how much he trusts him even as a sub.
It would really depend on Imrie wanting to take him to Raith on loan as surely no other Championship club is going to want him and likely no League One club is going cover enough of his wage to allow us a replacement making it worthwhile for us to let him go, but if anyone is going to leave on loan now he's the obvious candidate.
-
1
-
-
https://gmfc.net/sam-robinson-to-step-down-as-commercial-director/
Proper clearing of the decks come the end of the season then.
Also states that he's been filling in as General Manager while we haven't had one, which as far as I'm aware is the first we've heard of that?
That sort of hiding from transparency is exactly what we need to move away from with a new look board. I don't have any issue with a board member stepping into a role like that, but tell us when they do rather than keeping it quiet for 7 months. It reeks of being scared of accountability.
-
Didn't need a big rush for it to be done tonight when it's only a loan anyway and means he can't play against Ayr, but also probably means it's cheaper for us and obviously means we're not having to commit to any more 18 month deals to find competition for Brophy.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, AndyClark22 said:Does this mean if no players take extensions, Dalrada don't have to give us a penny?
I didn't read it as if it could be literally nothing. I took it as £288K is the maximum possible and that could decrease if some players aren't renewed, but there's still going to be some sort of minimum amount they're paying for sponsorship rather than the club getting for £0 for it, with the renewals for players aspect as a portion of it rather than the whole amount.
-
4
-
13 minutes ago, port-ton said:
Appreciate any business willing to put money in to Morton but their sponsorship should have been transformative and we have absolutely nothing to show for it off the pitch. They’ve left us no better off than when we started and we spunked a good load of it on shite like hiring Billy Davies.
8 minutes ago, TopCat said:Overall, a massive wasted opportunity. If the club had invested the Dalrada sponsorship in improvements to Cappielow and competent commercial staff, we'd be in a much better position overall.
These are the most pertinent points. If Dalrada hadn't insisted on funding being ring-fenced towards the first team they might have left behind a long-term legacy with improved infrastructure and the club in a stronger position for the future, instead there's nothing to show for it.
Hopefully a board without their influence and without John Laird can bring some competence that has sadly been lacking.
-
Obviously know nothing about Lopata-White, but he played with Moore several times last season. We've all seen players come out of English youth systems for the first time and not be ready to adjust to first-team football, but if he's anywhere near Moore's level then great.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Mr.Blue said:
Does the playing for two teams rule still apply?
Yeah, incredibly Partick have been unable to loan Eseosa Sule who they'd agreed a deal for with West Brom because FIFA have declared that playing for their under 21s in 'Premier League 2' counts as competitive football, along with the 3 games he played for Motherwell in the League Cup.
-
Murray explicitly said there'd been no contact about Tiffoney, someone made that up.
Reminder that we can also still make domestic loans until the end of February.
-
Murray confirmed himself in the Tele on Friday that there's been no contact about Tiffoney. Someone's made that up.
-
59 minutes ago, RossMcC1874 said:
That guy just makes up random shite or takes someone elses stuff.
Anyway hands off Moffat, however i wouldn't have thought it was a position Raith were light in.
Aye aside from it being that fantasist who's saying it, Raith already have four wingers. We know of course that Imrie has built squads with more than that and maybe they could bring one in then let Lewis Gibson go back on loan to Montrose, but when they've only got two fit centre backs and are struggling for alternatives to Hamilton up front you wouldn't think they'd make another winger a priority.
In any case, it's clear that Shaw is behind O'Halloran, Moffat and Garrity in Murray's pecking order. If we were letting any winger go it'd be him and you'd think Imrie would jump at that with how highly he rates him for unknown reasons.
-
7 hours ago, TRVMP said:
There were people who shall remain nameless (Dunning) also saying there was "no way back" for Murray after it.
Dunning: will your humiliating climbdown be now or after we horse big-spending Dougie Imrie's Raith in a fortnight?
No I didn't.
On 1/18/2026 at 1:43 AM, dunning1874 said:That was the kind of performance and result managers don't come back from, I think people are massively understating just how much of an abject disaster today was.
Saying it was the kind of result of some managers don't come back from - in response to people saying it wasn't that bad a result and/or it was nothing to do with Murray - wasn't saying Murray was already done because of it, and elsewhere I said no one should be calling for him to be sacked after one game because that would be stupid.
I thought we had to urgently see a massive improvement in defensive organisation at set-pieces and arguing the goals conceded were all down to individuals and nothing to do with the manager was ridiculous. In the two weeks since we've already seen that improvement in organisation and those individuals looking like better players for it.
-
That second goal was exquisite. The type of goal that never gets into a goal of the season competition because the finish isn't that difficult, but is better than most that do. That is an absolutely terrific team goal from every player involved right from the point that Gillespie wins it, but especially Delaney.
It's not an easy pass for Garrity to play it into Moffat's path while spinning himself but he puts it ahead of him, Moffat has a few options for what to do but takes the right one, Delaney times his run perfectly and delivers a great cross while O'Halloran is in exactly the right place, also a great run from him. Lovely goal.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
All of them played well, but thought Moffat, O'Halloran, Owens and Delaney particularly were terrific. Playing that well that early under Murray is hugely encouraging. Fully deserved to win that and should have been by two goals.
The lack of subs/the subs that were made were a bit of a concern, Brophy clearly couldn't run about 20 minutes before MacPherson came on and the obvious change when it finally happened was someone on for Brophy with Moffat going up front to press. With Moffat off instead we got worse as a defensive unit and it should never have got as nervy as it did, but no harm done ultimately and 99% of what we saw today is extremely positive.
-
3
-
We've... actually been good here? Game should be out of sight though, Brophy's miss is going to get more attention than his goal if we end up dropping points here.
-
I don't usually get caught up in the January deadline because it's the February deadline that really matters for Championship clubs, but this season is different because we're weaker than we were at the start of the window and have games with all three of our relegation rivals before the end of February. We need another centre forward now to give us the best chance for several must-win games including tomorrow, and Murray was clearly hoping to have something done this week.
-
2
-
-
I'd be surprised if anyone at Morton is earning even a third of Shaw's wage. Hamilton are going to have to blink and accept not having all of it covered, but there'll surely be higher bidders than us.
-
53 minutes ago, TONofmemories said:
Beach going back to Chelsea surely - he's only on loan?
They signed him permanently in the summer to be second choice. Then when Stryjek got injured it only took them two games with Beach in goal to decide to bring Oluwayemi in on an emergency loan nstead.
Beach being included in the rumour is what makes me think the whole thing is made up. Kilmarnock have brought Roos in to replace Oluwayemi with Stryjek still not fit. They still need Beach as second choice until Stryjek is back and aren't going to send him elsewhere to sit on the bench, while if Wolves were going to recall Storer to send him somewhere else on loan they'd have done it already rather than waiting until now.
-
No judgement on Molotnikov as a player, but unless he can start at centre forward it's not a signing we should be making. The last thing this squad needs is another attacking midfielder/winger.
We already have Garrity, Moffat, O'Halloran, Shaw, Lyall, Crawford and McKay who can cover one or both of those positions. It's the area of the park we should be shedding players from in order to strengthen other positions, not adding more.
-
9 minutes ago, mcintyre_gmfc said:
Watch us get rid of Brophy and sign Todorov, replacing one injury prone player with another. We rarely utilise the loan market as much as we should, something I’ve never understood.
If we got Todorov and one other I'd be fine with that, but either way we can't end up with only one.
-
While Brophy hasn't been great, our next in line options up front are Moffat, Garrity and O'Halloran. If we need to move someone else on to bring in a replacement for Adeloye then there's absolutely no sense in it being Brophy. We've got five wingers, seven central midfielders and one striker, moving the only natural centre forward at the club on in order to sign a striker and still be stuck with only one would be stupid.
You do wonder if getting out of the only 2 year deal for a senior player would be a factor for the club, but then that makes it less likely he goes without a payoff in which case we're not even reinvesting his full wage into the team, whereas with players with 6 months left (Shaw) you could see another club (Raith) just taking over their contract.
-
1
-
-
Murray on Connolly leaving:
“With that one, it's just about also cutting our cloth accordingly and seeing what's best financially for the club”
I'm taking from that that Connolly was well paid for a goalkeeping coach and we'll be replacing him with a cheaper one? You have to have a qualified goalkeeping coach, quite apart from how tinpot it would be not to it's a requirement for a bronze licence, so unless we want a points deduction then he needs replaced.
-
11 hours ago, kilbrideton said:
The issue with fan ownership is we do not have the numbers to allow it to work.
Right, this is an actual argument unlike LargsTON making up things that aren't true, but can you elaborate? What does having the numbers for it to work mean?
Does it amount to 'our fanbase isn't big enough to raise enough money' or is it about having enough expertise in the support? I think both are genuine issues with fan ownership but I don't see them as guaranteeing it to fail.
There's always the issue that if you have some unforeseen bit of capital expenditure - like the damage to the roof for example - a private owner who has enough wealth could dip into their pocket and cover it if they choose to whereas that's obviously harder to do in the case of fan ownership, particularly if the money raised by the fans is already flowing entirely into the club's budget like ours rather than being saved up for a rainy day.
That's one challenge, however I don't see it as fatal and the private owner model has its own downside, both in that scenario and in budgeting in general. As we saw ourselves for 20 years, the private owner proclaiming their own benevolence in "putting money in" is often just writing themselves an IOU. At least when a fan owned club has to move money around to cover an unforeseen cost it doesn't result in debt: that potentially having an impact on the budget in other areas doesn't make it a worse thing than running at a 300K loss every year and putting a millstone of several million pounds of debt around the club's neck.
Regardless of whether the club if fan owned, privately owned or a 50+1 close combination of the two, I want them to be sustainable and live within their means rather than going back to where we were in piling up a mountain of debt and just assuming it'll be fine. That the club started breaking even while improving on the park was a massive achievement of fan ownership and should be hugely celebrated (although we're still to see accounts for last season and this one to know whether that's another thing Laird has damaged).
As it is, MCT put over 100K into the club each season and Dalrada put something in that is presumably more than the actual value of shirt and stadium sponsorship. That is a combination of the club owner and a private party topping up the budget over and above the every day income every club has from season tickets, matchdays, merchandise etc, without the debt associated with a private owner doing it the way the Raes did.
Sure, it'd be better if that MCT income was coming from 2000 members rather than 1000 and we might have more money in the budget for being privately owned if that owner was willing to bankroll spending, but we'd be writing the club's death sentence if that was just going to be piled onto the club's books in soft loans. Either way the actual footballing income is the same due to the size of the support, so if you want a sustainable football club I don't see how the private owner is necessarily going to be better regardless of the size of the support.
-
2
-
Morton Club Together Updates
in General Morton Chatter
Posted
Naturally Estrella is going to be the big focus now, but thought the Cappielow 150 stuff was interesting and reiterates that both MCT and GMFC are looking at infrastructure and long-term planning. I'm looking forward to hearing more about that and it does seem the sort of thing that could once again hook someone like Brian Bonar (without wanting to bang the Dalrada drum over again). Make a donation explicitly for infrastructure for the stadium and that's how you contribute to a legacy, certainly Paul Farren seems eager to make that emotional appeal to people to get funding in place.