vikingTON

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.

That's (partly) it for me too. You can't seriously run on a 'we just want proper adults in the room making competent decisions' pitch, while directly and now repeatedly covering for the dishonesty and/or incompetence of existing club officials. The other thing that has disappeared from the discussion is what the original purpose of partnering with Dalrada was supposed to be. Can anyone remember? They were apparently going to use their expertise to help reduce the club's costs (especially energy IIRC) - the sort of partnership on infrastructure we actually need. What happened there? Now they, GMFC and the Q and A respondent(s) are just acting like Dougie Rae on steroids: justifying their partnership purely in first team budgetary terms, as if there aren't half a dozen clubs currently or recently in the second tier who have similarly doped themselves up and failed. Including ourselves under the previous ownership regime. The Dalrada proposal would have been at least 70% acceptable if they had set out a plan to seriously shake up the workings of GMFC from the outside and with tangible projects in mind to drag the club's fundamental business model into the 21st century. It is baffling that they have not done this - even for purely cynical reasons, just to win a bloody vote - but are instead doubling down on failed strategies and failing club governance.

Stinking take IMO. 1) The concert must take as long as required to preserve the best long term interests of the club. 2) I personally couldn't give a toss about the first team until the bigger picture issue is sorted. But I don't see Airdrie or Queen’s Park (or indeed anyone other than St Johnstone) swooping to bolster their squad anyway - that's the benchmark we're dealing with right now. End May/early June when the registration window hasn't even opened yet is just not a significant turning point in squad building. 3) Responsibility for not having a smoother transition lies entirely at the door of those who, since March 25th, knew that existing club directors were held in disrepute, yet lolloped on without any communication whatsoever until news of the transfer embargo broke, the final attempted defenestration of Barr/Robinson and the shiny new proposal from Dalrada all apparently materialsed in the first 5 days of May (if you believe the Q and A responses...) - fully 5 weeks later. Existing officeholders need to account for that 5 week window because that's where the wasted time (not to mention hanging Imrie out to dry with emergency signing and new player contracts) has actually occurred. The current process is unavoidable - it should have been underway weeks ago.

Perhaps once the Poundland Pulitzer has finished fact-checking all the spin by Dalrada's lackeys about the BLACK HOLE FUNDING CRISIS, he'll then be able to identify what previous top-dollar fees GMFC have earned. Because cutting off a revenue stream of, err, hee-haw, hardly constitutes a 'blow' to the Cappielow coffers (though the English language has taken a fair hammering).

They could demonstrate their commitment to competent governance by not circling the wagons around almost every current club official in the room for a start. It's worth highlighting that there remain significant demands - a de facto veto right - being claimed by Dalrada over GMFC board composition under a future partnership. That has to be revised IMO to being in line with their level of representation.

Credit where it's due - having the meeting is chaired by a Supporters Direct rep is a good idea. It addresses a practical concern about having both a neutral (and not self-defending) chair to keep Monday's meeting as productive as possible - I think they still have their work cut out though. Some signs of movement from the proposal side demonstrates why further scrutiny is required.

For a few days at least, until he gets mysteriously 'co-opted' out of the bin and back to his previous post. It's almost as if there's form here for 'overseeing a disastrous slide into irrelevance for a fan representative body'.

If anyone is mentioning administration in the event of rejecting the proposal, then they are acting in spectacularly bad faith. There's absolutely no reason why GMFC can't cut its cloth to set a break even budget without Dalrada sponsorship. And that of course assumes that rejecting this proposal would see such self-styled champions of community ownership Dalrada walking away in a tantrum due to, err, the community owners exercising due scrutiny. There may not be any winners but there is a much worse option of the two unless Dalrada and GMFC are sent back to the drawing board, while officeholders who have lost all credibility are removed from the process at club and MCT.

You can't offer new contracts all round when there is a looming hole in the budget - this isn't Dundee FC - and even if you did, the terms would not lead to any of them being accepted. The fault lies with GMFC/Dalrada etc. but specifically for kicking the can down the road for so long, when they could have put a proposal for greater involvement on the table for scrutiny months ago. As it is, I'm really not against having players move on. We should not have been handing out longer term deals in the first place, if Dalrada's deal was likely to to be reviewed at the end of this season. We cannot commit to first team deals of over 12 months length right now. Full flexibility is needed to respond to the budget that can be set, whatever that is.

1) Questions 1 and 2 pretending that an existing sponsor not being up to date on payments won't happen because this time there's a contract - risible. [quote]Why would it be acceptable for MCT to give this level of control to a sponsor? A: Control remains with MCT with its near 90% shareholding. The change in the board relates to the operations of the club. There is a degree of autonomy required for the club to makes its decisions in the best interest of the day to day running of the club. [/quote] 2) You just fucking covered up a FIFA registration embargo from both the first manager and the 90% owner of the club for weeks on end. Was there any intent to disclose that information at all? While expanding the size of GMFC board is perfectly reasonable, any such new board's wings need thoroughly clipped when it comes to autonomy. You clearly still do not get what the problem is here. [quote]Therefore, for the future benefit of the club it is necessary for MCT to consider widening the sphere of influence on the direction of the club to ensure we remain competitive against other clubs. [/quote] 3) Remain competitive against which clubs - what is the benchmark, and how does it justify committing the club's future to such a wing and a prayer deal? If there was a concrete proposal in terms of infrastructure and expanding revenue streams that Dalrada could demonstrably support then I would be much more sympathetic. There's a clear limit to the capital that MCT can raise, and we should take partnership offers with specific projects in mind very seriously. But just chucking money at a first team budget for the sake of ambishun? Not buying that - not least while the credibility of so many individuals involved is in the gutter.

It really isn't. If Dalrada are as keen to support community ownership as their statements claim, then they (through their assembled lapdogs) will respond to the reasons for it being deemed unacceptable, and either amend their proposal or just maintain sponsorship without ownership - having no actual entitlement to the latter. If Dalrada through their assembled lapdogs respond to a No vote by picking up their ball and going home, then we are absolutely better off responding to those actions now rather than being deeply committed to a partnership that is not being conducted in good faith. If there is a No vote, then the reasons for doing so need to be set out constructively. But there is no further obligation of MCT members to bail out two boards that haven't got a shred of legitimacy between them right now.

No. A mass abstention would be an irrelevant message; so long as the 'Interim' MCT board carry their proposal and sign over scrutiny to their mates indefinitely, they won't give a toss. We are not dealing with a neutral set of folk who will respond in good faith to the votes cast here. Unless there is a turnout/minimum vote requirement already written into MCT articles, then your abstention idea is even worse than useless.

Not to mention an offer framed as the only way to clarify next season's budget, when they could have made the exact same proposal months ago and had as many votes as needed on it to secure the best interests of all parties concerned, before the season concluded.

Ooft. The captain of Titanic could probably check off more key performance indicators than that, while festering at the bottom of the North Atlantic. Just the sort of professional executive mind that Dalrada want to have running the shop indefinitely and without scrutiny.