vikingTON

Care to remind us all how long Golden Casket retained such a mutually beneficial relationship, once their paterfamilias left the scene? If it was such an obvious winner, why didn't they retain the partnership, but simply at a sustainable level? More utter delusion at work here. This is not an actual investment model.

We were actually talking about business investment champ. Of which, football clubs - and Scottish football clubs in particular - are very much the junk bond level category of options available. Your claim that the EFG or any other group were somehow winning a watch by merely paying a sizable sum for a shareholding stake - for a business with zero tangible assets - while also being asked to chip in extra cash for no extra stake to keep the lights on remains utter, utter nonsense. Do you seriously believe this argument? Do others reading this thread believe this delusional tosh? If so, then don't start crying crocodile tears yet again when such claims meet hard reality. This is Dundee levels of stupidity and hubris on display.

Launching a Fighting Fund shortly before signing about 8 regens to create one of the largest squads in the division is already in the scam-adjacent category tbh.

I said investments in competent businesses - as opposed to football clubs, which are incompetent money pits. What examples outside of 'dafties sticking money into professional sports teams' exist of external investors both a) buying shares in exchange for a designated, capital stake and then b) handing over phuree money for absolutely no further influence or value on top of that stake, as the price of being involved Do you think your pension fund or any other professional investor are chucking money into glorified charity buckets, to turn around the fortunes of the businesses that they invest in? Delusional.

I don't think you understand how investment works. If I pay X for Y percent of an actual business - rather than an absolute money pit football club - then I am not required nor even remotely expected to invest Z in the operation of that business. Space X is not rattling around electronic version of charity buckets at their IPO shareholders, nor asking them to fill an existing shortfall in the budget that they signed off on three months ago. The wishful thinking on here about GMFC's status as an investment opportunity seem to be spreading fast. I fear there will be some tears and snotters soon enough when reality returns to the chat.

Scottish football clubs are ten a penny when it comes to investment opportunities - buckshee or otherwise. Hamilton have passed through the hands of about four since 2020 and will be up for grabs again soon enough. But yes, they just can't pass up the opportunity to get involved in a business with literally no assets and is on the brink of insolvency. Can't wait for that 'improved proposal' to pop up alongside the magic consortium.

"Every penny counts as we look to secure the future of our wonderful club." From the MCT statement shared with members today. 1) So why are we signing multiple players to add to a squad that is not small, but rather unbalanced? 2) What other actions are currently being taken to ensure that every penny counts from existing and ongoing revenue? Where are costs being reduced - including the biggest cost of all which is the first team budget? It is frankly risible that we are two weeks since this panhandling operation began and still have no defined and tangible outcomes of the FF.

I'd file this under 'utterly delusional'.

Here's the thing - and an issue that we didn't even discuss at the AGM, because The Statement veered things off into a different direction: It shouldn't actually be a one time only option, because MCT also invests £150k worth of capital, each and every year. Over 5 years, that is £750k of capital investment. Over ten, it's £1.5 million. So a key issue unresolved - or perhaps they did resolve it, as the offending article about new share issues was never actually published! - is how MCT's ongoing capital investment would count towards the share allocation at the club. I'd be happy for an external investor to get a stable 35% stake, or as good as 50-50 split for a set number of years as a gesture of goodwill, but after a certain point, if MCT are still contributing funds then they should receive appropriate new shares. So it isn't a one-time only strategy - if MCT continue to provide its own capital investment, they should recover a greater stake in the business. And can then bring in fresh capital. We need to move beyond the view that MCT just donates money to finance fulllll-time futba. It is capital. Members can split the funds for different purposes now that Dalrada are defaulting on their demands. MCT can provide a source of short term cash by retaining some funds, or can apply to invest in other projects that GMFC may have access to on a preferential basis, but not own. One potential benefit of EFG or another external investor who wants to run the football club is that MCT could then provide a complementary focus on wider infrastructure, community projects etc. Just chucking the lion's share of that capital at Ian Murray's 'warchest', never to be seen again, is no longer a credible approach.

Strange for someone who has tapped out, to then tap themselves back in immediately. Was hoping it would at least be less shite than that effort tbh. You hate to see it happen.

Fun fact: I halved the quote of your previous, War and Peace level boreathon and yet here you are, with the brassest of necks, trying to complain about meandering posts. Probably for the best that you tapped out then champ. In what way would anyone be 'stopped' from doing so?

1) It's not an excuse but rather the reality of a meeting that went on for the best part of three fucking hours, and which I know for a fact that people left early because they actually had other things to do with their Monday night. You're fooling nobody with this gambit. 2) The Estrella proposal was live and on the table until last Tuesday; the club and MCT's statement combined update on the operating reality was in the middle of July. So quite how the former induced the latter statement is a mystery residing in your mind only. 3) Issuing a statement that standards would be improved before doing precisely nothing in actions to demonstrate that is a risible attempt at PR management. Why should anyone believe what GMFC says now, when the board clearly just fires out statements and doesn't have any serious intention of delivering on them? GMFC should have been transparent with the owners of the organisation about Dalrada's existing default and the impact that this would have. Not least given that everyone and their dug had already heard that Dalrada weren't meeting their payment schedule prior to the season ending. By bullshitting both the fanbase and the ownership, the GMFC board have little goodwill now. 4) If members of the GMFC board accepted the pinky promises of a distant sponsor, already in default and demonstrable financial jeopardy - instead of acting to preserve the going concern status of the club, given they also had the opportunity to largely exposure to Dalrada funds from May onwards - then they should pay for that catastrophic error of judgment by stepping down with immediate effect.

Who are these mythical 1200 people, who would turn up and pay 22 fucking pound in, to watch a team that couldn't score a single goal (until today!) to show their dedicashun? I'm picking on this because it is archetypal of the greater and collective delusion that we badly need to overcome. The vast majority of the Greater Greenock community is not going to traipse out for a fighting fund, just like they never will (and never did) deliver 3,000 or 4,000 attendances for any team in the second tier under the Rates. Niall McGilp's excellent weekend column in the Tele confirms this. In the 1980s, in seasons where MFC had just dropped down from a ten team top flight (!) and were winning about half of league matches to support a return back, the average crowds were no better than they are today, after nearly 40 years solid in the lower leagues alone. It's far past time that people stopped indulging in nonsense about being a Sleeping Giant - if only in adversity - and operated from the reality of being a club with a resolute core support and nothing else worth pinning financial hopes on.

The formation is both completely predictable and utterly toothless. Not saying he is brilliant, but Brophy is being given a thankless task against two centre backs every week, and zero service from three sand-dancers who were hiding while we were in possession too often. The only way to give this team a credible threat is to change formation and go two up front with Savoury or any of our other 18 attacking midfielders playing behind them. Wilson, Cochrane and Gillespie provide the base for us to do something different to this utterly predictable pish. It was a great and well-deserved goal from Black, but we created little else in the game and over the three league games deserved to score at most a couple of goals. While relatively well organised defensively, we cough up soft goalscoring opportunities and set piece goals on a reliable enough basis to sink us. Unless the system is changed it will be a parade of plucky, narrow defeats and so the manager must be changed if he's not willing to do that. As for 'what about the cost?' - stick him on gardening leave and have a senior player take over, the latter of which Arbroath did two seasons ago. To persist with this is to write off the season - in which case we should start moving players on and cutting costs before this month is out.