vikingTON

Mark? Iain? Ryan? Jack?

Nope and nope - 'Walsall' are dung.

He scored 8 Championship goals in the Covid curtailed season, 12 if you include the various cups. He was however playing in a relatively good Morton team though - at least attacking wise. Cadden was delivering chances at the back post like the ball was on a string and the team as a whole had scored over 60 goals by the beginning of March. McHugh turns 31 this summer and burnt his bridges for me by slinking off to that vile QP 'project*' in the first place. Does not fit the younger and professionally hungry players Imrie has added to the squad so far. * Project - stuff your pockets with cash playing in a pub league, while gurning about 'ma wife and weans' to make you feel less of a grubby mercenary. Darvel's calling!

Thanks for the clarification, but how important are these powers in our current position? Surely the point of the exercise is that MCT and any external investors need to be on the same page when it comes to investment decisions at the club? If I were being courted for investment - which I'm not - then I'd want myself and any other external investors to exercise some check over a fans' group that has only been around for a handful of years. MCT could easily drive the club into a ditch as owners without having any malicious intent at all. I don't see why it's a bad thing that MCT does not get to run the club in the same way that GC did, to the detriment of all other interested parties. Sharing power and increasing scrutiny should make the stewardship of the club stronger overall so long as there's not a belligerent minority interest.

Could you elaborate on this point - what are the most important differences between a 75% ownership stake and (for example) 55%?

I really do not understand this point in the limited Q and A: "Our idea is to offer these shares in blocks of 5%, which would require those purchasing the shares to contribute £18,000 annually to match the MCT contributions." 1) How on earth would this be enforced? 2) Why on earth would any sane investor agree to pay an annual fee for the same single block of shares? Surely the more straightforward option is to allow investors to buy a stake in GMFC, on condition that future MCT capital investment would increase MCT's overall stake in the club? (Say MCT drops its share to 50.1% - ongoing investment in the club by MCT could recover its overall stake in GMFC to, say, 60% over a few years). This would gradually reduce the stake of one-time external investors - but they would know exactly what they're putting in up front. If they want to invest more, then they can add to their existing stake and influence.

Stephen McGinn is not a creative midfielder. Our forwards meanwhile are not breakthrough prospects with potential: they have an established track record across many clubs and with varying levels of service at each. With the partial exception of Reilly, there's nothing to suggest that they're going to score enough goals at this level regardless of the team behind them. That's why a player like Muirhead's career has gone the way it has up to now.

If the club wants a long-term commitment from Imrie then we have to make the first move. Slap down a four year extension on the table and - here's the important part - we then stick to that five year plan no matter what. No TTG for the management team at least; even if we drop down a level, we back Imrie to build the club up again. We've been through more managers since 2000 then any SPFL club apart from Livingston. Some of them should of course have gone a hell of a lot sooner (see McInally, J.). But it didn't bring overall success to the club under GC and it certainly won't at the moment. If we believe that Imrie is the best candidate we can expect - and I think that we should take that bet - then we should back that up. Any inexperienced manager will make mistakes and there will be bumps along the road - but we should give that security that he's not going to be following so many others out the door. Giving Imrie that security will also give the players that he's targeting the choice of engaging in a genuine long-term project; rather than being the temporary choice for some spare prick who'll be out of the door by Christmas (see McPherson, G.).

Back to our squad again, McLean's interview in the Tele during the week suggested that he's still undecided about the offer. It involves some sorry of off the pitch role which McLean wasn't too clear on himself - this is where having the chief executive leaving isn't helpful. McLean also indicated that he's looking for regular first team football though and that, for me, is where the club really has to stand firm. McLean is at the end of a good career and if he wants to keep playing every week then that simply has to happen at a lower level now. We now have Baird and should be looking for a McEntee replacement on top of that - at most, McLean should only be backup because there are enough question marks about the legs in our existing central defence. If he wants to keep playing elsewhere then all the best to him.

As often with the Tele's marketing the substance doesn't really fit the billing. Dismisses all talk as standard football rumours and is fully committed to the task at hand, but the quote: "I am here to do a job at Morton and loving every minute of it, so I will continue to do my job here until other things change, but at the moment it is all rumours as far as I'm concerned" is hardly a thumping long-term commitment. Imrie doesn't actually need to give this commitment though - the club hasn't given him a long-term commitment either in the form of a contract extension - so we can't have it both ways.

Would you say that the sweetie women who generated those rumours should be chained to the fountain at Clyde Square and egged like a Thatcher statue?

The problem with expanding the business through success on the park and league prize money is that you can't actually budget for this unless you are already in the top flight. Otherwise you're taking a wild stab at a certain league position in this division each year. If a combination of dung signings and/or dung manager make you underperform then a shortfall in the finances appears that someone has to fill. It didn't work under GC and it's certainly not going to work without someone writing IOUs to his own family who then get the car park land in return. Next time, it will be the ground itself that gets taken away. We need to focus on building the fundamentals - earning more on matchdays by having a club bar/social club rather than the nick at the corner of Sinclair Street. Having function space and/or office space to generate some revenue outside of matchdays as well. Until we have made a decent attempt at maximising those revenue streams then our first team budget should be a 60% cap on the minimum possible turnover of league and cup prize money, no questions asked. If that means no new contract to Gary Oliver or no longer paying so-called professionals to watch Judge Judy in the afternoons then so be it.

I largely agree with the rest of your post but do not understand this premise. Why should we need to raise money to 'put a decent team on the park'? That's what season tickets, gate reciepts, league prize money, hospitality, sponsorship and cheap tat merchandise are all for. That's how other professional football clubs generate revenue and if you convert 60% of that into a first team wage budget then that's you sorted in lower league Scottish football. MCT should not just be boosting the wage budget through capital investment and outside investors shouldn't be doing it either. If that's their pitch, then they shouldn't be darkening the door of the club because that's the Dundee route to yet another admin event right there. If outside investors want to partner with MCT to run the club professionally and use their investment to develop the revenue generating capacity of the club, then that's another thing entirely. There's clearly scope for developing the stadium and the area around it in a way that suits the club and private Investors, and we absolutely need a revenue stream that is not dependent on match days. So long as the plans are transparent and the terms reasonable, then we should IMO be open to that because I don't see (and never have) 100% fan ownership being the most effective model to drag us into the 21st century.

No, GMFC should not be putting out an official statement every single time a rumour does the rounds. If people don't want to buy a season ticket then that's fine: they'll just have to pay more when the early bird offer expires. If you want greater clarity then you're free to pay for it.

Compared to what benchmark? And two weeks to secure... what exactly? The club are right to starting the ST drive as early as possible in the close season. This time last year we had only just secured our league status though, and there's no great incentive for people to rush into getting one now.