vikingTON

"My primary motivation for returning was to help ensure the club's financial viability in the Championship. I believe we've achieved that goal." Ah yes, surely the bronze statue awaits on Sinclair Street for our selfless hero upon stepping down. Except that it is, as usual, self-serving bollocks of course. Acting with the primary aim stated (leaving aside the 'viability' of a model now dependent to a larger annual benefactor that Douglas Rae, so what is meant is 'fullll-time futba') would be a potentially valid excuse for MCT directors who were also on the GMFC board. We could reject that claim on their part too, but the conflict of serving two masters at once os clear. But last time I checked, Stuart Duncan was not sitting on the GMFC board in any capacity. There was no competing source of authority - the only role that Duncan had was as a member of the MCT board. Which raises some rather unfortunate questions for our erstwhile hero: 1) With what legitimate mandate did you act against the interests of the MCT membership you were elected to represent? When did you publicly state your prioritisation of 'fullll time futba' over the interests of the majority stakeholders in GMFC for full transparency and accountability, and when did you win sufficient support for that agenda? I don't recall that being on any candidate biography. 2) With what legitimacy at all did you act after both i) resigning from the MCT board in a tantrum and ii) canvassing support for an EGM against the remainimg board membership - an EGM that was conveniently discarded 0.4 seconds after you were 'co-opted' onto the interim MCT board? So no, I don't think there'll be a bronze statue forthcoming at all. If there is one lesson that new candidates should be embracing from this farcical last 6 months, it is that MCT board members must uphold a duty of fair representation and accountability towards the membership. If we continue to have MCT directors who get elected by default and then just run their own agenda, then MCT as an organisation will join GMST (see also Duncan, Stuart) in being a failed rump entity within 10 years.

Denied. Do we have any fucking information yet from GMFC regarding the assistant manager position, which may/may not have been vacated 7 weeks' ago by my back of a fag packet calculation?

I couldn't really give a toss about some completely token compensation. But this mewling, off the record take from an nameless 'Morton spokesperson'? "It is another example of why we must ensure we are not in the same situation again in the future." We? You (collectively) were entirely responsible for creating that situation, and waited with supine indifference until the last possible moment to spring a fait accompli on the owners of the club.

Dunfermline Athletic fans are braying morons. There's a reason why Jim fucking Leishman is considered a club legend, and also a reason why they have repeatedly lolloped into administration to about £20 million in total. They also only remained at this level due to Hamilton's points deduction. This is also the same fanbase that as @Toby may confirm, viewed swapping Ross Forbes for Andy Barrowman in January 2015 as yet another stunning transfer 'swoop' too. Literally every single thing they think about football is proven immediately wrong. You should reconsider.

Every single one of those double-barreled ringers at Dunfermline last season were stinking.

Centre back is the obvious and potentially difficult gap to fill in the squad (needing at least two good signings there) so it's encouraging to see us target that as the priority.

Better news about the St Mirren game being patched.

No, go and search the MCT thread where this was discussed. Then come back to state what parts of the update you disagree with.

Well no, there's quite clearly a yawning gulf between each one of your ridiculous false binary statements. Let's start with: 1) GMFC may have insurance coverage, but the sum paid by the insurers is not set and/or is not necessarily equal (higher or lower) to the costings provided, in relation to your ridiculous false binary 2). Instead of wasting bandwidth, perhaps you can explain what specific parts of the stadium director's explanation of this a fortnight ago you consider to be either unacceptable or false.

Gillespie and Crawford re-signing entirely fills our 'Scottish football veteran' quota in the middle area of the park. We should be prioritising a replacement (ideally an upgrade) on Lyall - goals, assists and effective in possession.

Lots of storm damage happened several months ago and hasn't been fixed yet. Your argument that GMFC should just decide what to do and who cares what the insurance provider says is unsound, not least when the same organisation has just had its FIFA correspondence being autofiled in the bin for a year.

A house along the street from me still has part of its roof missing from January too - it's as if you don't understand how insurance companies work. There's also no reason to have a tantrum about the Cowshed not being open for such box office ties like Stenhousemuir and *insert permadiddy here*, with crowds of about 1500 at a push.

You are aware how the highlighted part contradicts the pearl-clutching opening claim? If the conduct was so heinous then the 'legal dispute' would be non-existent. Like so many things that slither out from GMFC, the commonly held story simply does not stack up. As for the second part, while I was never a natural cheerleader for Millen, the only person in the room at Cappielow who is even remotely competent to make that judgement is Imrie, D. There is no other person in the building with relevant knowledge - and at no point has he (or indeed the players who have left) expressed anything other than complete support for Millen.

Some of these are viable, but a lot of them are not really open goals. Finding volunteers to traipse around the Oak Mall or similar is not easy and the likely return on that sacrifice of time is unclear. MCT (and the club by extension) are not actually charity cases - if a sustained drive for engagement is warranted, then they need to be professional (i.e. pay) to do so. The last proposal smacks of desperate panhandling IMO and should not be considered. There are few more annoying things in the first world than unsolicited phone calls from a company or organisation you have consciously stopped using (see 'Beer52' and other heavy subscription models).

A 1 second check to send proposals to the relevant address and organisation would work better. Did you send it on to the correct party in the end?

Dale is not responsible for MCT in any way, shape or form.

The contributions are being matched from a very high starting point already, and I doubt that MCT are winning too many new subscribers after the past month. The Q and A answer was that they would just 'try to add more members', but we're frankly nearing saturation point in membership for a club with a core fanbase of under 2000 folk. Organising events to raise funds as briefly mentioned on Monday by Brian Bonar could be a goer. If it weren't for the spectacular nick of the past month then MCT could perhaps broach the issue of asking for increased subscription rates all round (because inflation has now taken about a quarter of the original value), but it would be very unwise to consider that until trust is restored.

It wasn't £750k last season, it was stated as £700k since the beginning of Dalrada's involvement a few years ago. The accepted proposal is about a £200k boost, subject to any future increases with MCT investment (quite unlikely to amount to much IMO, but it's there to aim for).

Jim Duffy regularly didn't bother season planning until the agent called with a stack of ringers in mid-July. This is knicker-wetting pish. I think we can give the poor wee budget narrative a bye now that the scope of our sponsorship is now in the public domain. The only obstacle to building a competitive squad is that one year deals will - with any sense - have to be the uniform policy for first team players. But it not being a negotiating point should hopefully make our dealings quite straightforward, 'whit aboot ma wife and weans' special pleading being rightly disregarded.

The contract document for the proposal has just been released to MCT members, if you're on an updated email list.

Just in now* - I can sympathise with those on the online feed who had a frustrating experience at times. That said. it was always going to be frustrating - including in the room itself - and given the significant meanders of the first half I'm happy that exchanges weren't constantly being repeated for the benefit of the Zoom call. We'd either still be there now or little of substance would have been addressed. The moderatos from Supporters' Direct did a good job in very difficult conditions - not least with guidance on how to handle procedural issues. There are lots of issues that couldn't be directly addressed tonight the 3 key points I highlighted in preparation beforehand are below: 1) Using the six month notice - having MCT setting in stone a meeting for (January?) with news of Dalrada's stance going into the 26-27 season is critical. We cannot have this happening again - any future partnership deal needs to be on the table and ready to decide on ASAP. Hopefully this commitment can be taken forward and approved. 2) Board composition - who decides on the remaining 3 members? Unlike some in the room, i don't actually want MCT to necessrily have majority representation on the club board - the right skillsets are needed, and in the short-term there would be a shortfall of candidates given the enormous turnover within MCT itself. Brian Bonar indicated (verbally) that he has no issue with the remaining board members being MCT. which is a verbal reassurance but not strictly necessary IMO. What I did want greater detail on is how the selection process for new board members would work in the event of a split decision - what if some board members think a candidate is ideal, while others think that they are useless? Who ultimately decides? There wasn't time to address that. While I don't think that MCT requires a majority on the club board, it does require realistic power to prevent any bloc vote emerging on the GMFC board. That's still a longer-term concern for me - but I don't think having the stadium director or adding a 'finance lead' (their words) in the next few months would represent a hostile takeover. 3) Share issues. This was raised quite rightly by Gordon Ritchie in the meeting (and by @Greacen2000 etc. in submissions for the FAQ document). There was further verbal confirmation that a meeting is planned to adjust GMFC articles to further restrict new share issues. I'd like to see the ball rolling on that meeting right away tbh - set the date; set out that agenda. The current lack of trust/accountability would make this a sensible decision in the final hours of voting. That said, we have a verbal confirmation at the meeting this evening as well as a video stating this position too: could this realistically be reversed between now and January? The selection of new MCT directors is one way of further insuring against that - a new MCT board that is firmly against accepting dilution of the existing shareholding through rights issues would strengthen this point. The final - nuclear - option in the events of a rogue rights issue would be to just launch a sack the board campaign: the club needs the relatively united support of the fanbase regardless of whether Dalrada are in the room or not. MCT members can withhold payments - matches can also be turned into hostile environments. So there are still cards to play even if you do not take current officeholders at their word - but moving forwrad on that immediately would set minds at ease. Overall thoughts: The purpose of the above points is to impose sufficient safety brake measures in this proposal. If the share issue loophole is on track to be closed and if the ball is rolling to have open communication from January '26 on the future of the Dalrada partnership, then the most immediate risks would IMO be mitigated. It is absolutely right however to require those brakes being in place though - if this were a rolling contract proposal that required MCT to explicitly pull the plug in the future then I would have already voted No. The level of trust in current officeholders at GMFC and certain members of the MCT board is simply nowhere near high enough to commit to a longer term deal. I have not voted yet, but if the proposal looks more firmly like allowing things to essentially run until January 2026 and then giving all sides a better opportunity to take stock, then I could support that. *half an hour ago, when this tome was started

So what about the time when the Raes phoned in such a cheap, Rangers-esque banger of an effort, that they were forced to pull them and do better within days? Or would you be happy to have Union Jacks (or any other questionable design) festooned across the jersey? Grown adults having their knitting ripped by the piping colour of socks is definitely one for the watching behaviour, but your sweeping statement is just not true.

Be careful about questioning the competency of GMFC officials, in case Dalrada decide to slap down another fatwa insisting that they remain in place indefinitely unless 'Business Reasons'. It's a wonder that the football club has amassed so many top quality individuals at the helm, while being objectively steered against one iceberg and then another on a regular basis.

Call me cynical - because I am - but chucking out yet another clarification on a Saturday a handful of days before the vote closes (but all prior votes remain irreversible!) seems grudging. Sam Robinson could have dinghied it altogether of course, but it's hard to conclude within the wider context that either GMFC and the interim MCT board are mad keen on transparency. NB: Remember that according to the Q and A response, John Laird met with MCT representatives on March 25th, at which point the latter apparently tried to have Robinson and Barr removed as reps on the GMFC board. Literally nothing was disclosed about this, the transfer embargo or the potential break of a Dalrada's partnership for over 5 crucial weeks afterwards - by any party involved. So a video put up on Saturday 31st May doesn't wash in terms of accountability.