vikingTON

That was Graham McLennan but understandable mix up to make.

Speak for yourself. My main issue is with the total lack of competency at the club to replace essential personnel since the summer. I fail to see how that was a John Laird decision - what did the actual board have to say about finding a Finance Director, or resolving the 'review' of a chief executive post that has (still?) left nobody in a professional function to keep the day to day organisation running? That doesn't absolve Laird's absurd non-role at the club (at least in an accountability perspective) or overlook his predictable, spiteful exit. But people are making a serious mistake if they think that all responsibility lies, rather conveniently, with the guy who left the room.

Unless it also debilitated his decision-making and tactical awareness then no, he was just dung and ill.

The cup tie is a banana skin, but Stenny, like the rest of a poor League One, are clearly significantly weaker opposition than Dunfermline. The midweek league round in March has been removed this year so between that and the cup weekends there's little real risk of a fixture pile-up. Plus our squad is still a bloated mess, so if there's one thing it should be able to handle then it is 3 games in a single week. Add an extra week for the new manager to get some organisation into the team and continue transfers, and it's a clear net win to have this game punted by the weather.

'Steadily rise' is doing some really heavy lifting there, for a stunning high of 4C (currently ~1C). That Main Stand section is hardly going to be basking like St Tropez in 2 hours' time.

Think his pea brained agent has got more to answer for tbh.

Being dung is not an illness.

They'll be a League Two team soon enough.

We have played the top two away and Ayr at home in those 5 games. There is every likelihood that we would have taken a similar number of points regardless of the management position being filled (or even had Imrie still being in place...), with only a low prospect of picking up a substantially larger haul of points (e.g. 10 from 15, or higher). The process may well have been poor regardless, but its impact on the first team is nowhere near as significant as you argue. We've left ~3 points on the table while getting a manager who's probably not a Johannson level dud (which would cost multiples of that).

If the relationship with the sponsor would be "damaged" by having a pile of pish removed from the club website - and/or challenged by the actual owners of GMFC - as posted on behalf of *someone who did not even represent said sponsor*, then that raises further conclusions about the relationship, none of which are good IMO. Meanwhile, the relationship between GMFC and the fanbase - and therefore between MCT and its stakeholders - has actually been damaged by this week's fiasco. All while we tippy toe around hypothetical hurt feelings at some sponsor who do not own the club. Enough. We do not need an alternative partner in this distorted 'relationship' as it stands, in order to criticise, nor to point out the double standards when it comes to taking Dalrada's vision and concerns very seriously, when other partners would have been given short shrift.

The assumptions you are making are: 1) The tail will ever stop wagging the dog while this sponsor is in tow (I can think of a comparable local sponsor, who wouldn't have been given this unlimited generosity of patience and assumed virtue), and 2) That it is actually the purpose of MCT's board to focus on maximising the chances of a continued partnership, when weighed against its other interests as the actual ownership organisation of the club, and representatives of the key stakeholders being slandered across the national media and the club's own website by the latest, fly by night charlatan. Personally, I don't think a position of earnest supplication to Dalrada is sustainable in terms of MCT's credibility going forward. I do however note that a debate and formal vote was actually held on how to respond to the Laird statement. The only thing I'd like to know (or didn't take in from doomscrolling earlier) is to what extent the fact that MCT gave an initial green light to the Laird statement (or certainly did not contest its contents, of where it would be posted) impacted that later decision. It wouldn't be a good look to demand retraction of a statement that you agreed to 2 seconds previously - so it may be the case that the initial decision tied their hands in terms of what would be seen as professional.

With all due respect, this was not a fundamental principle of MCT. The organisation was originally set up as a supplementary (!) funding mechanism to GMFC as the Raes started to look for a way out. Deciding the composition of the GMFC board, never mind ownership of the club, were never part of the original MCT prospectus as its first subscribers joined. Those opportunities (and responsibilities) only fell to MCT due to to subsequent events. Any officeholder at MCT should therefore be mindful that the priorities of such a broad membership have never really been clarified and can't be taken for granted. I recall a survey was undertaken to try and fill some of that gap (e.g. first team v youth v infrastructure aims of MCT contribution...), and it would be helpful were the results to be kept visible and in the public domain if possible. But there is nothing like an organised expression of MCT views about club ownership or the board that can be acted on.

Let me know when the 'adults in the room' GMFC board establish their trust by running the club as something other than a 24/7 clown show. The fans (through MCT) own the club, Bonar does not. The tail is wagging the dog yet again in your approach.

The entire purpose of a forum is to voice authentic views (whether positive, negative, ambivalent) about an issue. It is not the propaganda wing of GMFC. This straw man argument for 'supporter unity' that gets peddled whenever someone joins the first team setup - and bizarre assertion that expressing a view is responsible for whether professionals do their paid job competently or not - is tiresome. And it's almost always hypocritical too - because if the new addition was an obvious dud in the eyes of the OP, then they'd be telling everyone else their thoughts. Edit: And we can see some of that hypocrisy laid out within the post, as at some arbitrary point of 'tits up' (defined by whom?), disapproval will automatically be waived against Supporters Who Don't Support.

No, the latter should not have been posted as a club statement. That should have been the stock response to any media invitation to comment, but the onus would be on any journalist to enquire, rather than having their copy prepared for them by either a club or (in this case) Laird's statement. The number of journalist enquiries had JL been obliged to take his mewling to LinkedIn on 31 December would have been zero.

Well signing and then fielding an ineligible player at Firhill (like the Ambrose scare when he rocked up) is one distinct possibility I do feel that 'the beaks' at Hampden must be probing our entirely solid club structures, and a breach or two is certain in the longer term future too unless we get our house in order.

Both boards can do no such thing until accountability for approving Laird's statement - currently dragging the club into national media disrepute on one of the slowest sports news day of the calendar - is established and actions taken. It's also far beyond tiring for the 'drawing a line' procedure after the latest, clown car episode behind the scenes at Cappielow to involve essentially no change at all, and us just pretending that it didn't happen. We already tried that in the summer: enough.

A handful of sycophants on the club board v everyone else who thought he was a walloper

Anyone who thinks that just handing out ever extended deals to John Rankin is the answer needs to follow Laird out the door.

Quite why the GMFC board allow such a risible, mewling statement to be issued on the club's website/official comms is revealing. We (quite rightly) didn't give Millen a right to a club statement on his departure - so why does our failed kinda but not really 'chairman' get an official club platform while slithering down Sinclair Street? He could list his made up grievances to his narrow bunch of mates in fitba on LinkedIn or some other equally detestable forum.

A query about Saturday's game - I noticed that hospitality seemed to take 5 minutes to go inside at half time, and then didn't come out until 5 minutes into the second half. Are they showing the game in there at all, or did our paying guests really miss the only positive note of that entire, brutal game (teams/conditions)?

How long have we been without a Finance Director or a chief executive/general manager? The managerial position is the least of our disarray and no unveiling soon should take our eyes off that reality.

Rare to both dodge a bullet and see it ricochet through the eye of your opponent at the same time.

Why have we gone back to this utter garbage formation with wingers, ever since the Ross County game which we completely dominated from the middle of the park and without them?

Not having such top notch players like most of our recent additions, or prudently looking after the interests of the club really should not be a discussion at all. If Dalrada and MCT do not have an agreement in place beyond this summer then absolutely no further deals should be offered to the first team squad beyond that point. Also, if I were a player who backed my ability, I would want a six month deal in January to keep all options open in the summer - including almost certainly better paying/more chances of winning something options than GMFC if I do well. Any player who is hankering after the 'long term security' of rolling 7th place Championship finishes in a January transfer window does not have the required 'minerals' to be signed at all, IMHO.