irnbru

Aye I'm hoping it will be a good signing. Had a read through some of his career there and it's impressive. Brian McLean done a job for us (at least in spells) and was older with less pedigree in the game. I think Ambrose is one of these players that people remember mistakes but you don't have a career like his without having a lot of qualities.

Not so sure about Grimshaw coming good tbh. He couldn't have got much worse than his debut but still question marks over him.

Not sure I agree with this (or at least the comparison). At 34 he should be able to do a job at some point. Ambrose has 50 odd international caps and won a major trophy and Grimshaw had an OK spell at Motherwell. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic but I think it's a positive signing despite him having a poor spell last season.

Must be older than I look.

Thought that was good. Bit of team binding as an added bonus to something a bit different. Although on the commercial side, I'm still waiting on a reply about hospitality after getting in touch at the start of the week to see about a payment.

The last sentence is true. We can't just sign people if not up to it.

Thought that. Did Hunter make a comeback or is my 10ish year old brain playing tricks? Either way, remember Jim Hunter being class.

Think Alan Mahood (or maybe Jim Hunter) got a bad injury just after coming back from a long period out. About all I remember too and even that might not be right!

Aye that's the one.

I think that's harsh given he's getting contracts. They obviously see something in him but can't get the best out of him consistently so there's obviously something wrong there. Hopefully the loan is a bit of a warning for him and he manages to turn it around. There's a good player in there.

Slightly related to this - if anyone has a Google Pixel 6 and wants a Morton cover or knows anyone who would then I've got an unused one to give away. Turns out it was the pro version of the phone I've got. It's this one https://nostalgia.co.uk/products/greenock-morton-fc-1992-93-away-shirt-phone-case

Aye, as long as there's a majority MCT board I don't really have a problem with external people since they should be able to remove them using their majority. What I'd like to see is normal MCT members being able to vote to replace the MCT board members rather than having to wait 3 years so there is some accountability there. I'm not keen on the 2 year pathway thing either because it limits replacements since there's only a small number of people that's applicable too and they might not be interested.

Definitely progress but there needs to be some accountability at the board level. If MCT members can propose and vote through someone should be removed at any point (or yearly instead of waiting 3 years) that might fill parts of the gap though. That should force the MCT nominee to step aside if it is one and if its not then there should be a majority MCT to vote them out from the GMFC board. The other part that I'm not sure about is that the pathway could be 5 years (2 on MCT board and waiting 3 til someone's term is up on the GMFC board). With the two points combined it's still quite a closed shop.

I thought 1, 2 and 4 were the main ones that added accountability in. I get the point but it looks like that can never be done since it relies on boards of people who have never been voted in (including one at GMFC who has recently bought his way in).

Looks like they haven't made the cut.

Aye, it's probably not much different from the Easdales tbf although a more formal agreement. Would be interested to see the terms but got to assume there's nothing binding us to anything other than sponsorship.

Don't mind the name. It's basically sponsored rather than a full rename so all sounds good. Couple of things that are a bit concerning. Would like board membership votes to be by MCT rather than bought and they don't seem to be on companies house as an active company (would like to see the accounts).

Allan could be taking his wage and they're happy to get rid...

I should probably have wrote necessarily be on both. Agree on all the other points here - much needed changes to how it's run. I actually thought it was a bit worrying that the new people didn't really flag that king of thing.

Might be misreading this but I don't think an MCT board member should be on the Morton board. Keeping them separate should work better if there's accountability and challenge which the other points start to address more than is done now.

Aye, I guess so. As with the gate price going above £20, it's went over the £100 mark and I think that's the kind of thing people subconsciously or otherwise makes people change their minds. I noticed the price listed for the dundee game is actually lower but as far as I can see there's no promotion of it being lower. I really feel for the commercial guy though - he seems to cover pretty much everything whereas Lesley Ann was basically hospitality and lottery. We've got people of both the club board and MCT board with their selling point as having marketing backgrounds - I've yet to see any joined up approach to marketing or a strategy (this is different from the commercial job but should support it).

That said, there must only have been about 20 there on Saturday...

Would need to be more creative with hospitality too. Can't see many people wanting to turn up at 930. MCT candidates aren't really anything to do with the day to day running of the club so aren't responsible for the PR. They should be responsible for holding the club to account though which they don't seem to do.

See that an MCT board member who's supposed to have a background in marketing saying the tone of the latest club update is good and it's good to see feedback from fans. This has been the message from MCT for a while and I fail to see what they're doing to help or hold the club to account. Instead it seems like he's distancing them. Not a good look.