The Greenock Morton Thread - It's Better Than Yours

[AsimButtHitsASix]

MCT flat out refusing to answer any questions about signing sex offenders again. I'm genuinely amazed our new board are somehow bigger cowards than someone who stalks women and sexually assaults them.

[Rudolph Hucker]

1 hour ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

MCT flat out refusing to answer any questions about signing sex offenders again. I'm genuinely amazed our new board are somehow bigger cowards than someone who stalks women and sexually assaults them.

They’re quite right too. They have to be left to make their decisions; just because you and a few others  (and it IS just a vocal minority) don’t like it or agree with it doesn’t mean you should continually drag it up. It’s a done deal, you don’t have to like it but you do have to accept it.

The guy was found guilty of what he was charged with and was given what was deemed an appropriate punishment. (And as far as I’m aware, though, he did not sexually assault anyone. You want to be careful there.)..

It was years ago. He seems to be rehabilitated.  It’s also months ago that we signed him. Let him get on with his life, and I suggest you get on with your own.

 

 

 

[vikingTON]

5 minutes ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

They’re quite right too. They have to be left to make their decisions; just because you and a few others  (and it IS just a vocal minority) don’t like it or agree with it doesn’t mean you should continually drag it up. It’s a done deal, you don’t have to like it but you do have to accept it.

You clearly don't understand how 'fan ownership' works then. MCT are accountable to their membership. By refusing to put themselves under scrutiny - whether over a player, or a manager, or indeed any other decision that they are implicated in at the football club - they are putting their own ego above their role as mere custodians. 

It's not their ball, it is ours. If MCT officials act otherwise, well let's just say those 900 subscribers will dwindle away to nothing within a decade. 

[AsimButtHitsASix]

 

 

9 hours ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

 just because you and a few others  (and it IS just a vocal minority)

For a vocal minority it appeared to be the most common question put to the podcast from what I've gathered. 

Knowing fine well he was chased out of the club beforehand signing him without any acknowledgement of what had happened previously was a cowardly act. As VT says we've been asked to not only pay for the usual stuff like season tickets, hospitality and shirts but also pay for a membership for a club together scheme that should be beholden to those members.

No one is asking for Lithgow to be sacked. No one is saying he should be dropped and never darken the door again.

The questions about the process and decision making and, now, absolute refusal to even acknowledge the issue exists. 

Did they forget what happened when he was on trial? Did they hope no-one would notice? Was it agreed between club and player that no one would mention him driving around looking for vulnerable women to sexually assault? Why is a cowardly silence on the subject more important than addressing the concerns of fans and members?

[Rudolph Hucker]

10 hours ago, virginton said:

You clearly don't understand how 'fan ownership' works then. MCT are accountable to their membership. By refusing to put themselves under scrutiny - whether over a player, or a manager, or indeed any other decision that they are implicated in at the football club - they are putting their own ego above their role as mere custodians. 

It's not their ball, it is ours. If MCT officials act otherwise, well let's just say those 900 subscribers will dwindle away to nothing within a decade. 

Oh I understand perfectly well how fan ownership works. That's why when it was first mooted I immediately understood that once it was in place every decision that certain fans didn't like would lead straight away to calls for a review or some sort of referendum before it could be confirmed. A system that could never work if it was run that way.

And it didn't take long for me to be proven right.

1 hour ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

For a vocal minority it appeared to be the most common question put to the podcast from what I've gathered. 

Knowing fine well he was chased out of the club beforehand signing him without any acknowledgement of what had happened previously was a cowardly act. As VT says we've been asked to not only pay for the usual stuff like season tickets, hospitality and shirts but also pay for a membership for a club together scheme that should be beholden to those members.

No one is asking for Lithgow to be sacked. No one is saying he should be dropped and never darken the door again.

The questions about the process and decision making and, now, absolute refusal to even acknowledge the issue exists. 

Did they forget what happened when he was on trial? Did they hope no-one would notice? Was it agreed between club and player that no one would mention him driving around looking for vulnerable women to sexually assault? Why is a cowardly silence on the subject more important than addressing the concerns of fans and members?

..... ^^^ and here's a prime example of it.

It IS indeed a small but vocal minority. As far as I'm aware only a fairly small percentage of the support actually listen to the podcasts and only a small number of them continue to raise this issue. That's what constitutes "a small minority".

So you think it was a cowardly act to sign Lithgow? I'd say that, if anything, it was a pretty brave decision, taken for the benefit of the squad by a group who were not even confirmed as the club owners at the time.

The rest of that post is simply an emotional irrelevance - apart from the fact you use the term "sexual assault" again.  The only person he touched was himself - I think you could be on dangerous ground using that term.

The point I'm making, which you both seek to ignore, is this - MCT make decisions that they think are for the best. Those decisions CANNOT and should not be balloted before they are taken, that just isn't practical in the real world.  No matter how much you two and a few others scream and stamp your little feet the decision to sign Lithgow was taken and any further comment on it from MCT would be superfluous and simply keep the mater dragging on.

Change what you cannot accept, fine. But accept what you cannot change.

 

[vikingTON]

29 minutes ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

Oh I understand perfectly well how fan ownership works. That's why when it was first mooted I immediately understood that once it was in place every decision that certain fans didn't like would lead straight away to calls for a review or some sort of referendum before it could be confirmed. A system that could never work if it was run that way.

And it didn't take long for me to be proven right.

I don't recall any demand for a 'review' or 'referendum' when the club decided to hand out another deal to a proven haddies like Robbie Muirhead and Cameron Blues - both of which were widely unpopular - so your claim is in fact total bollocks.

The only two decisions (among many unpopular/incompetent ones this summer) that are demanding communication from the real owners of the club right now are:

- hiring a convicted sex offender as a player, without the club or MCT making any attempt to address the fucking obvious issues that would raise, and

- handing out a completely unnecessary two year deal to a caretaker manager, while claiming not to have the money to make a managerial change

Those are higher order issues that should absolutely be explained to the fanbase. Not least so that the MCT officials who were responsible for either the decision-making (two year deal) or the communication strategy (ignoring the sex offender issue) can be judged on their track record when they stand for election in the future. 

Without transparency you can't have accountability. Without accountability it is not a 'fan owned club' at all: it is a 'committee men owned club'. Which anyone who has any understanding of the Morton fanbase knows will not be tolerated. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

FWIW, I'm personally not particularly concerned about the first issue (though I absolutely am about the second). There is clearly a section of the fanbase who are angry about the first one though, and for MCT - never mind the club - to try and wave that away and then refuse to engage on anything other than their own terms is a spectacularly bad handling of that issue. 

As was pointed out on the Morton forum, a club communication shortly after the signing would have likely put this issue to bed. Instead they have turned an issue about a criminal record to an issue about who is calling the shots at the club, and the contempt with which they seem to be treating its owners. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by vikingTON

[Dunning1874]

48 minutes ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

The point I'm making, which you both seek to ignore, is this - MCT make decisions that they think are for the best. Those decisions CANNOT and should not be balloted before they are taken, that just isn't practical in the real world.

 

Absolutely no one is asking for this to be the case, as you know fine well. You're talking to people who've been saying all along that they feel fan owned should not mean fan run. This means we actually want less fan involvement in footballing decisions than MCT do, considering their ongoing refusal to recruit someone with footballing expertise to take responsibility for those decisions in favour of continuing to do it themselves.

No one is asking for fans to be given a veto over signings, what's being asked for is some degree of accountability. This isn't about whether the signing was right or wrong but how the club handled it. Regardless of whether anyone personally has an issue with the signing or not themselves, the fact is that several fans did, some of them MCT members who the board of both MCT and GMFC are ultimately supposed to be accountable to. The club could have addressed those concerns at the time of the signing - the reaction of fans was after all, as you acknowledge yourself, entirely predictable - or in the days immediately following it when they did get that reaction.

If they'd simply put a brief statement out at the time no one would still be asking questions about it now. No one would have had to like the justification given and some fans might still have been unhappy, but the club would have addressed the matter by giving an explanation which people would have been free to take or leave. Having stated their logic about rehabilitation, contrition, second chances and whatever else, no one could argue that the club was ignoring the views of fans (the same fans whose funding is the sole reason this board is in place) or just running away from the issue.

Instead we got total silence, which created exactly the impression that the board don't give a toss about the views of fans and would rather everyone just pays their money then shuts up and eats their cereal. That's an appalling impression to create at the start of fan ownership when the board are only there because fans have put them there. The feeling they were running away from the issue was only exacerbated by the response to some fans singing a song glorifying Lithgow's crime at Firhill, when they took the frankly cowardly step of having MCT publish a statement condemning it but no official club statement.

Their complete refusal to address the issue on any occasion they've had the chance is being taken as indicative of their attitude to the fanbase and MCT membership in general. That's the reason people are still asking about it, and with yet another opportunity to address it they have once again failed to do so.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

2 hours ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

So you think it was a cowardly act to sign Lithgow? I'd say that, if anything, it was a pretty brave decision, taken for the benefit of the squad by a group who were not even confirmed as the club owners at the time.

The rest of that post is simply an emotional irrelevance - apart from the fact you use the term "sexual assault" again.  The only person he touched was himself - I think you could be on dangerous ground using that term.

The point I'm making, which you both seek to ignore, is this - MCT make decisions that they think are for the best. Those decisions CANNOT and should not be balloted before they are taken, that just isn't practical in the real world.  No matter how much you two and a few others scream and stamp your little feet the decision to sign Lithgow was taken and any further comment on it from MCT would be superfluous and simply keep the mater dragging on.

Change what you cannot accept, fine. But accept what you cannot change.

 

I don't think it was a cowardly act to sign Lithgow. I think signing Lithgow, knowing how it would go down with a sizeable section of our support, and refuse to acknowledge that reaction and to hide away from it is cowardly. Also you should look up the definition of sexual assault - it includes flashing. This was not someone who was having sleekit w**k and was caught unawares - it was someone who drove around looking for women in vulnerable situations and forcing them to watch him masturbate. 

Again no-one is asking for Lithgow to be paid off out the club or for whoever has holding the pass-the-parcel chairmen set up to make every decision by twitter poll. However if they are going to make decisions that will affect the image of the club to the fans and the wider public then they could either explain their decision at the time or, at the very least, acknowledge the concerns fans will have. If they were genuinely so stupid to not realise the backlash the signing would cause then their refusal to acknowledge it since is an act of cowardice. 

When people complained about the singing at the Partick game from fans who were celebrating Lithgow's history of sexual assault they managed to speak out against it (although, notably, on the MCT twitter page and not anything officially related to Morton).  Of course they never mentioned what was being sung as it would put them in the tricky position of publicly condemning singing about sexual assault whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.

They've had multiple chances to address the decision making behind the signing and the lack of statement when it was made and flat out refused to do so. As for "change what you cannot accept" No. f**k off. I'm not going to change finding sexual assault abhorrent. Neither am I going to accept that, in a fan owned membership, we cannot change a mentality that thinks this is an acceptable decision that ignores the views of women, sexual assault survivors and flies in the face of their talk about safeguarding at the club.  
 

ETA the fucking nick of how MCT approached this

"We want to do a Q&A on the Podcast"
"Sound. Any questions we can't ask?"
"Nope. Absolutely everything is fair game."
"Here's our questions."
"We're not answering those ones"

Edited November 11, 2021 by AsimButtHitsASix

[The Ghost of B A R P]

5 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Absolutely no one is asking for this to be the case, as you know fine well. You're talking to people who've been saying all along that they feel fan owned should not mean fan run. This means we actually want less fan involvement in footballing decisions than MCT do, considering their ongoing refusal to recruit someone with footballing expertise to take responsibility for those decisions in favour of continuing to do it themselves.

No one is asking for fans to be given a veto over signings, what's being asked for is some degree of accountability. This isn't about whether the signing was right or wrong but how the club handled it. Regardless of whether anyone personally has an issue with the signing or not themselves, the fact is that several fans did, some of them MCT members who the board of both MCT and GMFC are ultimately supposed to be accountable to. The club could have addressed those concerns at the time of the signing - the reaction of fans was after all, as you acknowledge yourself, entirely predictable - or in the days immediately following it when they did get that reaction.

If they'd simply put a brief statement out at the time no one would still be asking questions about it now. No one would have had to like the justification given and some fans might still have been unhappy, but the club would have addressed the matter by giving an explanation which people would have been free to take or leave. Having stated their logic about rehabilitation, contrition, second chances and whatever else, no one could argue that the club was ignoring the views of fans (the same fans whose funding is the sole reason this board is in place) or just running away from the issue.

Instead we got total silence, which created exactly the impression that the board don't give a toss about the views of fans and would rather everyone just pays their money then shuts up and eats their cereal. That's an appalling impression to create at the start of fan ownership when the board are only there because fans have put them there. The feeling they were running away from the issue was only exacerbated by the response to some fans singing a song glorifying Lithgow's crime at Firhill, when they took the frankly cowardly step of having MCT publish a statement condemning it but no official club statement.

Their complete refusal to address the issue on any occasion they've had the chance is being taken as indicative of their attitude to the fanbase and MCT membership in general. That's the reason people are still asking about it, and with yet another opportunity to address it they have once again failed to do so.

Only thing I'd add to your analysis of the issues in play (which is spot on) is that anybody still bleating on about how 'we shouldn't have signed Lithgow' (past tense) should can it at this stage. I didn't agree with the signing at the time (or with the pathetic way the PR was handled), but it's done, over, a fact (present tense).

[vikingTON]

47 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Only thing I'd add to your analysis of the issues in play (which is spot on) is that anybody still bleating on about how 'we shouldn't have signed Lithgow' (past tense) should can it at this stage. I didn't agree with the signing at the time (or with the pathetic way the PR was handled), but it's done, over, a fact (present tense).

Why should they? They're fans and have the right to their opinion. 

We shouldn't have re-signed Blues or Muirhead and the idea that people should 'can it' about that decision just because they're playing now is obvious nonsense. It's not over and done with until any of the above players have actually left the club. 

Spoiler

And even then, I will still want accountability for whoever hand-waved through a two year deal for the clown who wanted to keep Muirhead and Blues. 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by vikingTON

[AsimButtHitsASix]

I'm wasn't as fussed about the two year deal at the time. Wouldn't have been my choice but could see some kinda logic in it. Whatever. When they admitted recently they couldn't afford to bag him if they wanted to that made the decision to offer him a two year unfathomable.  

[The Ghost of B A R P]

33 minutes ago, virginton said:

Why should they? They're fans and have the right to their opinion. 

We shouldn't have re-signed Blues or Muirhead and the idea that people should 'can it' about that decision just because they're playing now is obvious nonsense. It's not over and done with until any of the above players have actually left the club. 

  Reveal hidden contents

And even then, I will still want accountability for whoever hand-waved through a two year deal for the clown who wanted to keep Muirhead and Blues. 

 

Because there's a point at which it just becomes destructive noise... and because nothing can now be done about it that wouldn't make the situation worse.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion, as you say, but continuing to shout your opinion about spilt milk after a certain point is all about the person doing the shouting, as opposed to the issue... which is done, in the specific case of Lithgow. He's a Morton player, under contract until May 2023.

Your analogy with the likes of Blues and Muirhead is false, btw: they drew criticism because of their (lack of) ability, so every time they step onto the pitch the rights and wrongs of whether they should have been re-signed are highlighted over and over again. The Lithgow issue has nothing to do with performance on the pitch. By all means say he's been underwhelming, but do that without regard to the circumstances in which he was signed. Two separate issues: one ongoing; the other, as said, done.

So to be clear: I didn't think (past tense) we should have signed him; and I think (present tense) he's been disappointing on the pitch. Only one of these two issues can or should be the subject of meaningful ongoing discussion.

Beyond that, as @Dunning1874 and others have said, the issue of how the club has handled it can and should be the subject of discussion, because that may have a bearing on how the club (and maybe even the individuals directly involved) will handle any similar situations in future.

[vikingTON]

24 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Because there's a point at which it just becomes destructive noise... and because nothing can now be done about it that wouldn't make the situation worse.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion, as you say, but continuing to shout your opinion about spilt milk after a certain point is all about the person doing the shouting, as opposed to the issue... which is done, in the specific case of Lithgow. He's a Morton player, under contract until May 2023.

There's absolutely no evidence that what is being said about it is making any situation worse. Other than the situation of 'Gordon Ritchie and other MCT directors, running away from a podcast because they didn't run a Putin-style list of pre-approved questions past them'. Which is entirely their own, self-inflicted problem to deal with. 

Quote

Your analogy with the likes of Blues and Muirhead is false, btw: they drew criticism because of their (lack of) ability, so every time they step onto the pitch the rights and wrongs of whether they should have been re-signed are highlighted over and over again. The Lithgow issue has nothing to do with performance on the pitch. By all means say he's been underwhelming, but do that without regard to the circumstances in which he was signed. Two separate issues: one ongoing; the other, as said, done.

Morton fans don't need your permission to decide which criticism they want to make about a player is valid. They pay their money and in fact have also paid the money to own the club that makes those decisions as well. Your gatekeeping is a total waste of time then.

Edited November 11, 2021 by vikingTON

[The Ghost of B A R P]

^^^^ ‘Destructive noise’, also known as ‘talking utter pish’.

Come back when you’ve learned to read.

[vikingTON]

^^^ verge of tears

[The Ghost of B A R P]

^^^^ Highly original critical thinker who can definitely read whole sentences at a time.

And apparently addicted to having his arse handed to him on a football forum.

Spoiler

[vikingTON]

^^^ word salad

[The Ghost of B A R P]

In other news… Dunfermline have more or less flipped a coin on their season by appointing Hughes: they’ll either be gone by Christmas or float up the table and away from trouble.

Can’t help thinking this is going to develop into a three-team mini-league, with us, Ayr, and QoS battling it out for 8-9-10th (7-8-9th if the likes of Thomas and Wighton decide Hughes is a clown).

We play both those teams at home next month… similar vibes to January last season, when failure to beat QoS and Arbroath kept us well and truly stuck in the lower depths.

Season defining.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

Pl: 22 W: 3 D 10 L: 9 GF: 17 GA: 26 Pts: 19

Well the good news is, as Dunfermline have shown, the rest of the bottom half of division is so shite even if we wait another few weeks before sending Gus to the gulag we still wont be completely cut adrift at the bottom.