irnbru

If they were completely genuine with no agendas of their own then framing it as a fresh start where current and new members can make a pitch on what the see as the future of the club and MCT then it might be a good thing since no one really talks about that in their applications. It does seem to be based a bit of a personal agenda though and, if it's the person people suspect, then causing trouble without any real substance behind what they are saying/ offering is probably the most likely thing here.

With a tight budget it's a bit ridiculous that Murray has signed O'Toole and Mcluckie. Clearly neither are ready for this level.

Assuming this is Gordon Richie who I wouldn't trust at all either and some sort of vendata seems to be his main driver. They also mention not knowing the amount at the same time as being part of the consortium which is a bit strange. No one is going to argue that both boards have done a good job but if these people really just wanted Morton to 'survive and thrive' there's ways to force votes, etc. They also mention MCT being a democracy so asking for new elections where new candidates and exiting members all need to get voted could be a way to soften this - let the members decide.

We'll obviously need to wait and see but for me it's not a lot for majority control and a short term fix. The 150k might tide us over but then we're back where we were. Part time is an option but I'd really like an open debate with MCT and it's members to try and agree or move towards something. That could be part time, selling some shares, selling all shares, etc but the question hasn't been asked of members and no board members have indicated anything about their thoughts. At the very least some sort of agreement would give us a starting position for negotiations.

But also only around the same or less (I think) than MCT contributions. If they drop due to not being a majority owner, the it's not really adding anything. 12k monthly + an initial 150k is only 582k though, not almost 900. If we're giving away majority control (and potentially Cappielow or part of the ownership), I'd expect a much bigger input that helps kick the club on. These figures won't do much to change the situation and improve us significantly.

Not actually sure where the 150k for shares would go anyway. Presumably back into the club where their 12k a month is probably around the same as what the current owners are putting in so it's handing over a lot without the club actually getting much guaranteed benefit. Would be a huge leap of faith to think they would put addition money in never mind them being capable of doing a good job.

There would need to be quite a firm agreement to safeguard the club somehow and tangible outcomes from paying every month so it's not just fans funding a groups temporary hobby. Some sort of capital investment might be a way ahead but it can't just be a donation (caveat here is that MCT are essentially doing that since it's not been run that well but by paying you are still part of the majority shareholder). There's an additional risk that a consortium of ten might have different opinions pretty quickly and things getting messy. If there's any sort of agreement to try prevent that and, if things go wrong, a group can easily pass the buck to each other, so it's difficult to hold anyone to account to do anything with that. Any company they set up to do everything is essentially a shell company so if monthly payments stop for example, there's not anything or anyone there to pursue. If we don't have anything that's watertight that works for the fans longer term, there might be a few people opting to use their contribution for a holiday or something every year. The other argument is there's not many other options so selling a majority of shares might be the only way ahead. In this case, it might be better selling all the shares at a higher value in that case. MCT could potentially still own the stadium with a long term lease agreement (including maintenance is the club's responsibility) and have some sort of golden share that gives veto over name, badge, stadium moves, etc - something like that probably goes back to the capital investment point where MCT funds could be diverted to that so it's still appealing.

If they want 51% as reported then MCT becomes less attractive to be a member of since there's a lot less power as a collective so contributions might drop quite a bit. I'd hope they acknowledge this and don't just see the MCT money as an easy income stream without any hassle.

Managed a huge rant easily enough. At the moment all we have is a couple of newspaper articles and rumours about wanting Cappielow as part of it. A holding email saying we can confirm a bid and will update soon would do. Especially after whatever the last thing was supposed to be.

There's got to be a way to get rid of him even if there's no senior players willing to step up. Bit of a gamble (and assuming anyone would touch the job) but someone coming in with positivity might add and extra couple of hundred to the gate, crowds will gradually drop if we stick with him, etc so the money can be offset somehow. A short term stadium and shirt sponsor until the end of the season would add a bit to the budget too. I don't think he squad is a complete lost cause so there's also an opportunity of a decent cup draw, somehow finishing, 8th, etc. I'd really hope the club are analysing all of these options - sticking with him is just going to harm us even more. Even if they do stick with their charity case business model, the more we get beat the more apathy with grow so someone with a positive attitude that can create some sort of siege mentality could help that too.

Wonder when the very transparent MCT will at least send a mail to acknowledge this offer is with them and net steps.

Also pretty depressing that the half time interview was still talking about the main sponsors 'financial challenges' and Tam Cowan. Is the club actually trying to increase review outwith just having a begging bowl out or trying to be a bit more creative in ways to reduce spending? It just feels like we're run as a charity or social club. Any investment is going to want a significant amount of control over the club - it's the only way anything will change so, in that respect, Estralla are right that there needs to be contractual ways of protecting their money (and success by association).

Teams pick and choose their moments against us. It's the same story every week - so easy to play against and score when we're vulnerable. Sit in, be narrow and catch us on the break or crowd the edge of the box and win second balls. It's the kind of stuff Sunday league managers can pick up and and play against so why we've persevering with it is anyone's guess. Murray surely isn't that stupid to think that keeping doing the same thing will somehow improve things. If we can't get rid of him can we ditch the assistant and bring someone in that will challenge him? The players aren't that bad. Certainly not bad enough for a winless streak like this so it can only come down to the manager.

Brophy wasn't great tonight but no player is going to impress being so isolated against 3 centre backs. He was the only one pressing but obviously getting near them was almost impossible and when he dropped back to link up, only O'Halloran was getting up the park. Actually thought the full backs seemed to be told to sit back a bit more than they should - Ballantyne in particular looked like he had to think twice about his usual game.

Brophy was on a hiding to nothing too. Up against a back 3 with a midfield about 20-30 yards behind him most of the time. Basically had to either drop into midfield to get involved or run back and forward across gbw width of the park. O'Halloran clearly still has the pace. At this stage in the season there's no shame in using him with long balls over the top.