dunning1874

We don't need to no, but the number of goals we conceded around the edge of our box before Wilson came in last season evidently made Imrie want one and showed that we were better defensively with one. Maybe King will just come to be good enough with his defensive positioning that we don't need to worry about it, as we do if Lyon and Blues are the deepest two.

I can see both sides of this. When the budget is stretched, McGrattan is our only creative central midfielder and Muirhead & Quitongo are our only centre forward options, we clearly need to make room to bring in the creative quality we're lacking and therefore can't be carrying all of Jacobs, Gillespie, Blues, Lyon and King in the squad. He's clearly the player Imrie had the least intention of using out of those five, he hasn't impressed since the 20/21 season when we were also a dogshit side that wasn't difficult to stand out in, and midfield is the area of the squad we could most afford to lose a player. For all those reasons this makes perfect sense, and bringing a centre forward and playmaker in are both much bigger priorities than keeping Jacobs around. Thing is though, with Jacobs gone we're now in the position where the famously not injury prone Grant Gillespie is our only real holding midfielder. We need to hope King is capable of adequately stepping into that role when required, because we already know that Blues and Lyon aren't. Even at that King is also our only left back cover, so if we find ourselves with both Strapp and Gillespie out at the same time we'd have an issue there anyway. Imrie clearly doesn't rate Jacobs, but he wouldn't have been first to go for me. While it's undeniable that he hasn't impressed and even at his best he was nothing more than a decent Championship player, he also wasn't really given a chance under Imrie. He made three starts in Imrie's time in charge; Easdale and Hynes have had more opportunities than that. We've had to move him out on loan because we can't find a club willing to cover his full wage. Freeing up some of the budget was entirely necessary, but when things are this tight finding yourself in the place where you've got some financial outlay on a player you can't use isn't great either. This brings us back to decisions made with signings in the summer. Jacobs, Lyon, McGrattan and King were already under contract, with Wilson and Blues out of contract. We obviously needed another holding midfielder even if Wilson turned us down, as has come to pass with the signing of Gillespie. If you've already got Jacobs, Lyon, McGrattan & King signed up and know you are definitely adding a natural holding midfielder while also needing a first choice playmaker, then where is the room in the squad to give Blues a contract? It can only come if one of those under contract players can be moved on at no cost to the club. This was evidently not possible, as we are still covering some of Jacobs' wage. We could have had more room in the budget by not handing out a contract in a position we were already adequately covered in, which has left us paying a player to play for 'FC Edinburgh' while we are pleading poverty. Now maybe this isn't primarily Imrie's fault as he had the goalposts moved on him with a changing budget and he thought he didn't have to consider King part of the first team squad, or could sign up Blues while still having money available to add a playmaker and striker too. Maybe it is Imrie's fault as he did know what was available and blindly hoped more money might come along when that wasn't guaranteed, leading to the imbalanced squad we have. Regardless of the underlying reason though, it was the wrong decision.

This is the thing though, talking about radical change and reform of MCT is reasonable and arguably an urgent necessity. Someone saying that MCT isn't working in its current form and they need to change is a different thing from saying that the entire concept of fan ownership is doomed to fail no matter what, as if there is absolutely nothing MCT or any organisation could possibly do to make things viable under any circumstances. Which is really the same thing as saying Morton can't be viable under any circumstances, and is nonsense. It is utterly tedious that every single piece of negative news that has come from the club since the takeover has been met immediately with "this is why fan ownership can't possibly work! Sell to the first Angelo Massone figure promising to make us the third force who comes along!" as if private ownership is a magic bullet which will make all our problems vanish and somehow not drive us back into the same debt spiral Golden Casket led us to. That's not what many people are doing on here, you included, but it happens among the wider support. After a statement like that today we absolutely should be having conversations about MCT's model, what can be changed, what the long overdue rewriting of the articles should entail, who within the organisation is doing what, how transparency and accountability of both the GMFC & MCT boards works in practice, and what model we want for the club as well as for MCT as an organisation. Having little or no confidence in MCT in that context is entirely reasonable, and if a serious alternative proposal about future sustainable ownership comes along then look at it, but anyone offering "just sell it as it is literally impossible for a Scottish Championship club to be fan owned and not die" as a contribution to that discussion shouldn't be taken seriously, because they're completely detached from reality.

Saying they're looking at a proposal for a loan is a massive alarm bell and it's hard to see what loan terms could possibly be acceptable. We didn't get a debt free club just to plunge back into debt by taking out a loan to cover running costs It's worth noting though that anyone who is immediately reacting to this by saying "right, sell up, we need a white knight to takeover and fund us" is effectively asking for the same approach of piling debt on to cover running costs, just with the debt being back to a private owner again in the same shitshow we had under the Raes. That is the death sentence you are asking for when you ask for a private owner to come back to plug losses as fan ownership can only fail. None of which is to say MCT are doing everything right and can't improve. The problem is that, as before, we don't know who within the boards of GMFC and MCT is doing what and who is performing their roles well. Certainly this leads to further questions about why the club has sanctioned so many two year deals to players and why there has been no consideration of going hybrid, and the rank and file MCT membership (as well as the wider support) don't have the information to hand to know whether more could be done to generate income. I will say as well that as much as this is a cause for concern overall and we'd have wanted the income from that investment, if it was a case of investment with anonymity or no investment then it falling through is absolutely the best option.

I believe the players we've had on loan to the Lowland League since it was created are Darren Hynes, Lewis McGrattan, Shaun Rodgers (all Gretna) Zander Easdale, Tam Orr, Aidan Ferris (all the then BSC Glasgow) and John Tennent (Cumbernauld Colts).

A loan to the Lowland League is a reasonable enough route for a 17/18 year old at our level to take for their first experience of first team football. I despise the whole concept of the club in question and sincerely hope they cease to exist, but in terms of the level he's going to be playing at I don't really have any objection. There is of course the question of how short we are on centre forwards in the first team and the quality of those options, but if he isn't ready for Championship football we should be going and looking for someone who is good enough, regardless of whether this youngster is better than some others who are around at the moment.

Back at our nonsense with this. So the whole gates remaining closed thing was actually just the club putting out an unnecessary and poorly worded tweet. Everyone was free to leave whenever they wanted, they just had to ask the steward at the gate to let them out rather than the gates being permanently opened minutes before the end. There's no stewarding issue there and that's common across Scottish football. There are still other persistent issues. So we still have the ongoing farce of safeguarding children by not allowing them in without an adult, creating the extremely safe situation where weans need to approach random adults in Sinclair Street to be able to get in. Yet in line with that safe approach, I did see yesterday a child at the turnstiles with what appeared to be their father. Naturally, as is normal at the terracing turnstiles, two of the four weren't working and people were all over the place, not knowing how to use the tickets etc (leading to one steward loudly commenting "fucking cretins"). So the parent and child are both trying to scan their tickets, it comes up green and the adult tries to let the child through first only for the steward stood there to insist that it was the adult ticket which was scanned, so the adult need to go through first. So he does, then the wean scans his ticket and the turnstiles flashes up red, saying the ticket had already been used. Rather than draw the natural conclusion here that this had arisen from the white elephant turnstiles being a mess in the first place, the child and adult both trying to scan and maybe it was the child ticket that had let the adult through, the position was immediately "That ticket has already been used, you need to go and buy one if you want in". As if someone has stood up the back of the Sinclair Street end and floated their already used ticket down to their mate in the street without anyone noticing. I was also told that people were having umbrellas confiscated yesterday on such a delightfully dry day, although I didn't witness that myself. You look at how a club like Arbroath has grown to having a larger support than us, and of course success on the pitch has been far and away the main factor in that, but put it this way: there's no way they would have grown their fanbase among children to the same extent if Gayfield had the Cappielow stewards.

How do we know that a) it was Footasylum and b) if it was that negotiations have collapsed, seen as partnerships with other clubs are just being announced now and we could be next?

There has been (mostly in the squad thread rather than this) a colossal amount of speculative shite throughout this summer and especially in the last two weeks. If we're going to pass judgements on MCT I would rather we were doing it on the basis of facts instead of bullshit conjecture about investors mandating team selections or guesswork about budgets, so on that note let's actually deal with the one pertinent factual point at hand. There is a very important discussion to be had around the whole issue of resigning from MCT board but still being on GMFC board. Of course in practice anyone who does so is still considered an MCT representative, but it should really be codified somehow in the MCT articles how this works in terms of the MCT majority on the board. Where's the democratic accountability, and what's in place within the articles to stop someone declaring themselves an MCT representative on the board because they've happened to have bought a membership or have been on the MCT board in the past, and now have aims contrary to the MCT board or membership as a whole? For example, and I'm well aware this is a melodramatic scenario, someone could be voted onto the MCT board, join the GMFC board with the best of intentions, leave the MCT board as a matter of course without resubmitting themselves for MCT re-election, and evidently going by the positions of Graham Barr, Gordon Ritchie and Stewart Farmer, be considered an MCT representative on the board. Now this is no aspersion being cast on any of those three individuals, however without any sort of specific point within the MCT articles to address this, if it's as simple as 'you were once co-opted onto the board as an MCT representative, hence you are always part of the MCT majoirty on the GMFC board' there is nothing to stop someone who used to be on the MCT board, has remained on the GMFC board and since became employed by the outside investor voting in favour of said outside investor and becoming their de facto representative, even when no MCT member actually votes in favour of this. That's a very extreme scenario, but it is nevertheless possible. I get that things moved far faster than MCT expected from an investment vehicle taking a stake in the club to actually owning the club and therefore the articles did not evolve the way they should have if a fan ownership organisation had been the plan from the start. There's a whole minefield to navigate there and my raising this is not a dig at anyone who is in a leadership position. The fact is though that as rank and file members of MCT we have absolutely no power to declare a lack of confidence in board members of MCT, never mind GMFC. So if GMFC board members, who let's not forget are only there because fans' money put them there, are unaccountable to the MCT board never mind membership, how the hell do we actually have any power whatsoever in practice?

As others have said, that sort of public airing of grievances really isn't on, although Imrie is hardly in a position himself to complain about someone going off on one in public right now. I actually do think it's understandable for Jacobs to be pissed off despite last season. Gillespie will rightly get a chance to prove himself and be judged on his performances for Morton as all new signings do, but ultimately his recent career trajectory of not being good enough for Ayr in the Championship or Raith in League One doesn't scream of a guy who should be getting a start for a Championship club. He didn't end up in League Two because of the money Queen's Park were throwing around when he had better offers like some others, he ended up there because the only full time club that wanted him was at that level, and he again failed to hold down a place in the team once they were in League One. I think it's reasonable to be a bit miffed at being kept out the team by someone with that recent career trajectory, and I hope a new season and new system means a clean slate for someone like Jacobs, who has previously shown that he is capable of performing well in this division, rather than being judged on the three starts he made under Imrie last season. What Jacobs obviously needs to do though is earn his place back with his performances whenever he gets a start again, rather than having family complain about it on social media.

We saw enough last season to know that we need a real holding midfielder in there or we'll lose too many goals through loose balls or not shutting down quickly enough in midfield, so one of Jacobs and Gillespie needs to play. We also saw that we were a far poorer team without Lyon in there, with Blues beside Wilson not offering nearly as much in possession. For all Blues is a better player than when he first signed for the club, the things he's improved on do not make him good enough to play in that position. If the shape is going to be akin to a 4-2-1-3/4-2-3-1, Lyon is clearly the best option we have to be in the sitting two beside the real holding midfielder. My concern is that Blues may be seen as undroppable at this point; I try not to read too much into captaincy but is giving the armband to him rather than eg Strapp on Saturday, along with the two year deal, a sign that he's going to be playing every week? With the squad as it is Blues should be the most advanced central midfielder there with everyone available, but when we add a real playmaker they'll take that position and I'd be concerned that we'd then see Blues played deeper with Lyon dropped. Even with more bodies in midfield than last season I think that would leave Jacobs or Gillespie in the same spot as Wilson was, where the player alongside them doesn't do enough to drive us up the park and they end up having to take more responsibility with the ball at their feet than they should.

I wholly expect O'Connor and Baird to be first choice with Lithgow as cover. I'd prefer Jacobs to be first choice over Gillespie but remains to be seen which Imrie's preference will be. If either of them are available we'll always see one of them in the team as the holding midfielder. Point being, the only one of the seven absentees who wouldn't have got a game ahead of someone in that XI on Saturday is Easdale.

Someone is evidently at it here, and I'm inclined to think it's just Imrie sounding off. It was never publicly stated but all the rumours around Imrie allegedly wanting away were based on the budget apparently being cut. At the MCT EGM it was then explicitly stated that the budget is remaining the same. Your three scenarios then are: 1. The budget has remained the same but it's all been spent on what we've got already 2. The budget has not in fact remained the same and a GMFC board member openly lied to the membership 3. The budget is not actually fully spent yet but Imrie isn't wholly chuffed with the calibre of player left to him with it and is indulging a journalist asking questions about it Scenario 3 is clearly the most likely option there. 1 is a pretty laughable scenario which would only reflect badly on the manager's own recruitment decisions. We've actually had 11 players out, not 13 (Hamilton, Bysouth, Russell, Ledger, McLean, McEntee, Brandon, Wilson, Oliver, Reilly, Ugwu), so if the same budget has gone with only 7 in and some new contracts, then that would simply be a case of a manager fucking it. People have had their issues with MCT and individuals on the board, but scenario 2 is a massive leap and there's no reason to believe they'd paint a target on themselves by telling an egregious lie like that. 3? Yeah, that works. The troubling bit is explicitly saying the club needs to find him more funds as if the budget is entirely spent, but a manager sounding off publicly in the hope it puts some pressure on the board to release more funds is something you see dozens of managers doing every single transfer window.

While it's half-time, a quickly taken down attempt to cover Imrie's interview on Sportsound: Young also later said he understood the decision to narrow the pitch wasn't made by Imrie. More on this after the game, but something really doesn't make sense here.

Glad that's done. It happening two days before competitive games start suggests to me that rather than something particularly holding up the transfer, the club were just doing a bit of shitehousery since Livingston were letting him train with us anyway to only start paying his wage at the last minute possible. Which is objectively sensible behaviour if it doesn't jeopardise making the signing in the end.

Akeel Francis would obviously be a complete embarrassment of a signing which would leave us as clear relegation candidates with no goals in the team, but as said it's David Vize. The guy just makes a load of shite up, lifts some rumours from tabloids and when the tabloid rumours come true points to those as evidence that he actually knows what he's talking about. Don't believe this for a second.

You magnificent bastards.

I'd never really cared much about Partick, no more than I did about Dunfermline or any other clubs of a similar stature. The whole twee cuddly toy shite could be grating but so are Fifers, football clubs being allowed to exist in Lanarkshire, etc. Their conduct in 2020 changed that. Like Hearts and Stranraer (and to a lesser extent Rangers, ICT & Falkirk) their behaviour that summer should never be forgotten. Hearts were the main culprits at the time, but at least they've managed to shut the fuck up about their baseless sense of injustice for a few minutes in the years since. You'd have thought being established in the second tier again as a credible top half side with the budget to match, showing there was no long term harm done, might have had McCall cutting out his incessant whining about how hard done by they were to be relegated for being the worst team in the league.

When Partick released him I thought Crawford would make sense for us, presuming Sibbald has pretty much the whole division after him and the odds of us getting him are small. If true that would finally give us a playmaker for the midfield three, but with the crucial difference to last season that unlike Oliver he is actually a central midfielder and has the legs to do the defensive work too when required. Escaping Ian McCall's tendency to play central midfielders out wide and actually getting to nail down a place in his best position would hopefully see him hit his stride too. In terms of moving central midfielders on, as before we don't know how exactly Imrie envisages the midfield and front three working but you can broadly say this would give us two options for each role in the middle: Holding midfielders: Jacobs & Gillespie Box to box: Lyon & Blues Playmaker: Crawford/other new & McGrattan Obviously you can't entirely pigeon hole players to one role like that, but with Lyon and Blues having played in all of them while Crawford or McGrattan may be used further forward at times, I think those six is the right amount of depth. That then allows King to go on loan, assuming he's not having to stay around as left back cover.

Kabia would be much better news. I reckon we could be realistically looking at an XI like this now, leaving aside the debates around how exactly the front three will be set up for the sake of simplicity: Schwake Pignatiello - O'Connor - Baird - Strapp Lyon/Blues - New - Jacobs Muirhead - New - New (Kabia?) Cover: New youth GK Lithgow, Hynes, New LB Gillespie, Lyon/Blues, McGrattan, King Muirhead/New, Quitongo, Garrity, McGrattan, McGregor, Easdale You'd think that number of players should allow King and McGregor to get the loan moves they need to develop. If the players you're parachuting into the new slots in that starting XI were to be, to pluck some names out the air, Craig Sibbald and Euan Henderson, that would look like quite a handy XI with reasonable cover. If instead the remaining new signings are no better than what we have and we get a first choice midfield three of Jacobs, Lyon and Blues with Quitongo the first choice centre forward, we'll have gone backwards. Have to trust that Imrie knows what he's doing as he's given us no reason not to, but I'm really eager to see quality come in now.

Both those signings can be considered fine in isolation but make it vital that we get some real quality with the signings still to come. We needed another holding midfield option and Gillespie is acceptable for that as cover, despite the hope we could have had someone closer to Wilson in quality with Jacobs as cover rather than bringing in someone to be cover to Jacobs. Similarly Quitongo is a massive gamble, but we basically needed a whole forward line including cover and if he's going to be taking Oliver's place as impact sub rather than being an Ugwu or Reilly replacement then we could have done worse, such as keeping Oliver. We still need cover at left back, ideally through someone who can cover centre back as well. Otherwise every other signing to come needs to be someone coming in to go straight into the starting XI, with serious creativity and goals needing added. As it stands those three or four signings could be the difference between 4th and 10th. Some Craig Sibbald level coups and we can look up the way, more Jai Quitongos and you've got a team which ended last season with only 7 goals in 11 games looking considerably weaker creatively.

Underwhelmed is putting it lightly. Hopefully we've got much more quality to come and he's only here as cover.

I'm not slow to criticise the Raes and on the face of it someone offering six figures for a player like Quitongo is a take the money and run scenario, but it's worth noting the offer we reportedly turned down on the last day of the window was £100K and we made considerably more than that by getting to the League Cup semi. When you consider his goals in that run there's a reasonable chance we wouldn't have managed it without him, particularly when there would have been no time to replace him. None of which is remotely an argument in favour of bringing back him now, of of course.

Looking at where we are with ins and outs now: Out: Russell, Ledger, McLean, McEntee, Brandon, Wilson, Reilly, Ugwu, Oliver In: Schwake, O'Connor, Baird, Pignatiello Fair to assume Hamilton will probably join the players out and Schwake is a replacement for him, while I'm not counting Bysouth as it's safe to assume he was on buttons as a youth player and will be similarly replaced on the bench by a youth player on buttons. Laying it out like that I'm a bit more comfortable with the scope we've still got to add depth to the squad - adding Hamilton to the departures makes it 10 out with only four in, so even if we can only match up the numbers we had last season there's still the room to add six. It's possible we could even stretch that further, if there's truth in the rumours that Ugwu and Reilly were both on decent wages - perhaps the wage for the two of them could be spread between three new signings rather than two, and maybe Schwake comes cheaper than Hamilton too. Having had five defenders out and three in, we could be okay with one more. We still need left back cover but if that player can cover centre back too then we've enough depth in defence. If that was to then leave us five signings to go, that's enough for another holding midfielder, a playmaker, a couple of centre forwards and a behind the striker or winger type, the numbers of each depending how exactly Imrie envisages setting up that front three. If there's some real creative quality among those signings then that leaves us in a pretty good place. If they're all the level of Jai Quitongo...