vikingTON

I'm pretty sure that they *do* have a basic database, but it doesn't record all payments ever made from years ago though, to determine who should be getting warning letters/emptied for not contributing the full £240 original pledge (a contested figure/requirement). Which isn't surprising given that there was absolutely no need for a start-up volunteer led organisation to painstakingly record that at the time, recalling the practical limitations of the pandemic too. It was quite simply a terrible proposal and incomplete records was only one of about 15 reasons why it was emptied.

A reminder that the AGM is scheduled for this Wednesday coming - in case (like me) you thought you had forgotten and missed it already. Strange that there has been no discussion of the proposed amendments: Proposed Amendment to Article 19.3: 19.3 The Company shall mantain a Register of Members and any person ceasing to be a Member shall be removed from the register. Proposed Additional Article: 19.5 Any Member who fails to pay their yearly subscription, an amount set by the Company, either through monthly payments or a yearly one off donation to the Company shall have their membership revoked. The MCT 'Interim Board' recommends accepting both. Unless the intent/wording of the above proposal is clarified at the AGM, however, the proposed additional article 19.5 should be rejected, for the following reasons: 1) While I fully agree with the presumed aim of converting the model of MCT into an ongoing subscription group (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe members still only need to provide their initial funding commitment - certainly 'original' MCT members couldn't be obliged to pay under the existing articles), a degree of basic self-awareness is in order here. MCT leadership has just made its own contribution to a high summer farce at the club, while the much-vaunted communication aims from the last AGM fizzled away quite rapidly after a promising start. MCT needs to keep as many folk on board as possible right now - not rattle a tin at them and threaten to kick them out. 2) The sanction of revoking membership is not the right method of changing behaviour. Let's say for argument's sake that Dougie Imrie or Neil Warnock did not commit to an ongoing monthly/annual payment when they signed up to MCT - will the 'beaks' at MCT Towers be slapping down an official notice threatening to sling them out the door? 3) A better solution IMO would be to link annual subscriptions to an active membership (decision-making and candidate) role. To have a full voice in MCT and (hopefully) influence the club's direction, you should have to pay your way on an ongoing basis. If people prefer for whatever reason to retain a 'passive' membership without voting rights or eligibility to stand, then that's fine. This would likely require a significant change to the existing articles of MCT (for next year's AGM), but spending more time redfining the purpose of the organisation is absolutely preferable to this rushed and 'stick only' approach of winning subscribers and influencing people. 4) In that year, MCT and the club should also explore adding the fabled incentives to ongoing subscription, such as discouts on merchandise, hospitality as well as seeking links with local businesses. There has been no visible progress on that front, while the likes of Arbroath have tied themselves very effectively with their local community. 000 5) While 'passive membership' (under my suggested system) of MCT would involve little regular decision-making rights, I would still prefer to have the key issue of the MCT stake/ownership at GMFC to be determined by all members, regardless of subscription status. It is absolutely acceptable IMO for people to have signed up to support community ownership or any other motivation (perhaps not even Morton fans) but to not care about the year to year running of MCT and the club. But if/when the fundamental purpose of the current organisation is up for debate, they are fully entitled to a say given their role in helping MCT secure ownership in the first place.

Aberdeen have Celtic this weekend and a European tie the midweek after us. Their new hotshot forward, signed from Portsmouth, is utter garbage. If we could get the finger out and re-establish our back to basics, defending from the front approach then they are there for the taking.

Which means that the leadership of GMFC need to go back to Business 101 and grasp that their 'discount' is still (probably significantly) above the market-determined price point for the service being offered. I'm sure that supplier prices have gone up but you can't just automatically pass that on to the customer - it's not even remotely a captive market. Do we still have the right supplier for the service? Do we have an efficient setup in terms of other costs like staffing? If you can't anticipate and then address those issues over the entire close season to deliver a product in time for Saturday 2nd August, then your commercial strategy is a total failure.

I'm sure that the very professional, top business minds that Dalrada want running the club will be cracking the whip on commercial strategy. Because being able to flog a steak pie/pint hospitality on opening day is inexplicably bad.

Had he started better then confidence might have helped him to perform effectively - Saturday's game in particular showed a player who just isn't in the headspace to take players on, even against League Two jobbers. But the underlying lack of quality was always likely to show. Agree that he gave everything in terms of effort and wish him well. Couldn't pick what level his next club will be at though.

I would not actually be in favour of re-signing Stuparevic, unless the terms of a loan were so generous as to make it less than an 'established first team player' earns for us. The reasons being that Adeloye and Stuparevic are far too similar. While both have an undeniable eye for goal, neither are going to do the hard yards of *effective* pressing that our style under Imrie requires. Had it not been for both getting injured in the same game last season, I fear Imrie would have felt obliged to try and shoehorn both into a starting lineup (as he tried at the start of that game) and we'd have been no better at the end of the season compared to having neither available for months and yet finding a better overall balance in the team anyway. We can - if we're lucky - carry one poacher off the ball but not two. I would much rather strengthen either defence or midfield with a top tier wage earner than try to play the two of them at the same time. Not least given the loss of defensive solidity compared to last season. Keay on the other hand would be a promising option to have off the bench but would be clearly below Adeloye in the pecking order (not partnering). That might not be his first pick, but by September the most effective choice for both parties might well be to sign on again. NB: I'm not aiming to slaughter him here (if he had been fit and signed instead of Adeloye, that would have been fine too), but any sort of 'Stuparevic stats' should be filed in the same bin as the previous Lewis McGrattan nonsense. The subjective verdict of performances need to mirror the statistics to make a legitimate, Allan Jenkins shaped case - they don't match here, nor in the case of McGrattan (whose mystical winning presence surprisingly has not translated at all to a new club).

No more significant consequences than signing Zach McKay, or Taylor, or Sonny Hart previously. The consistent measure should be whether they a) would add something useful to the squad and b) the opportunity costs elsewhere surpass a). I'm neither convinced that this proven track record forward is available, nor that we're targeting one on top of Adeloye re-signing (correctly or not). There are bigger upgrades likely available in defence and midfield, but you're assuming that re-signing Keay is an obstacle when it actually could be the trade-off required to add 'proven quality' elsewhere. I don't recall the same (general, not personal) sentiment expressed back when Lewis Strapp was doing pretty much the exact same thing on a regular basis. There's no saying what the situation will be in 12 months' time - though if he does go on to do very well them those 12 months would pay us back regardless. Any decision should be made, as Toby suggests, based on a ruthless calculation of interest for this season rather than either what has happened this summer or next.

There's no evidence that it's an either/or choice though. He's highly unlikely to be on a 'proven record' level of wage (by our standards) regardless of where he ends up.

It would be rude not to share this with the rest of the class.

While I agree with the sentiment, Livingston threw similar amounts of money around to successfully clamber back out of the second tier just 12 months ago. Sadly it's not really an 'Uncle Roy' problem any more - it's a parachute payment and (beyond fucking nonsense) UEFA 'solidarity payment' problem. Any top flight club that gets relegated now has the means to essentially dope their way to promotion - and from a business perspective, the reward to risk ratio almost requires them to do so. You'd be mad to not leave a mere half million quid on the table, when top flight football guarantees a much larger return and access to the same trough of nonsense payments if and when you get relegated again. Add to the mix the elitist con job that was 'Project Brave' - abetted by too many clapping seals who prized international tournament appearances - and the constant drum beat for 'strategic partnerships'/B teams, and it's clear that Scottish club football is going down the shitter in real time. It may not have been of the highest quality, but there was a fundamental integrity and competitive merit within it (beneath the level of the ugly sisters, and above the non leagues at least) that is now rapidly vanishing from sight.

I expect Imrie will have added a very experienced defender to the squad by September.

Dougie has applied for at least one if not multiple jobs at a similar level - he clearly feels he is hitting a glass ceiling. So having a plausible succession plan if/when Dougie eventually gets a job elsewhere is the greater priority - as that could happen in November and we're left with some Johannson or Gus-level dud.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.