The Greenock Morton Thread - It's Better Than Yours

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

What do you think Boyd's on? Not enough for a defender who is of sufficient quality relative to what we currently have?

And I'm not demanding some kind of quality x quantity mega-squad... just pointing out that we have neither sufficient quantity nor quality in defensive positions as things stand. Grimshaw, Strapp, and Ambrose out, French and Braodfoot in. Every Morton supporter can see that apart from you, apparently.

You've missed Harkness, Wilson and Waters in from that selective account of players signed to cover defensive positions since May. 

It is beyond ridiculous that people continue to claim that we haven't signed enough defensive players, when we've spent a significant amount of time, effort and money doing just that. It is not Imrie's fault that we are now on our fourth long-term defensive injury - and the second one for O'Connor. 

Quote

Managaing the budget as the early season progresses is just quite literally part of Imrie's job. The fact that three of those four players were signed after the League Cup draw was made is less relevant than the fact that none of those players are first-pick defenders coming into a squad crying out for precisley that.

Well no, because you claimed that the budget was sufficient to fix the defence before the cup draw was made. Three of those four signings would not have came in at all had we been papped out of the cup in the group stage, or got a less lucrative draw - because the budget wasn't there. 

Which means that the actual operating budget Imrie was working with at the start of the season was enough for the okay but paper thin squad put out in July. That was what we were actually relying on to get through the entire season. You cannot spin away that reality. 

Quote

And there's no revisionism or 20-20 hindsight going on at all: only hysterics react definitively to individual signings as they're made; but that doesn't mean it's not legitimate to judge the overall business when it's been completed.

It's not legitimate to bemoan signings that turned out to be unsuccessful, when you and indeed pretty much everyone was happy for those signings to be made at the time. That is indeed hindsight judgment and not fair criticism.

Edited November 15, 2023 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Ok, at least that's clear: you think we should effectively go part-time (having the youth players in full-time doesn't materially change that).

Apart from the fact that your view seems to be motivated by some bizarre resentment that some people actually make a full-time living from playing football, you still haven't specified the advantages being 'one of the better picks for semi-professional football' will magically bring. How is that going to get us players who are better, not worse than we currently have? How does it get you closer to a 'credible first team squad'? If it's hard for us to compete for players currently, how does 'you'll huv tae get a job' make us more attractive? There just isn't a pool of sufficiently talented players out there who would rather be part-time than full-time (O'Brien, McKenna, and I'm stretched). 

Seems to me that what's preventing us from doing that isn't 'arrogance' (not even sure what that means btw), but a hard-headed acknowledgement that, difficult though it may be, full-time football is entirely necessary to prevent us drifting into permanent decline.

I happen to think there is a 'hybrid' approach that might suit us, but part-time football is not the answer (until such time as economic conditions determine that it's the answer also for our direct competitors).   

GMFC would be near the top of semi-professional talent pool as opposed to the bottom feeders in the full-time pecking order. By not hearing the violins playing about 'mah family and the mortgage to pay' every summer, the first-team budget can be stretched further across more players (with two sources of income rather than just football), which allows for a credible squad  that isn't reliant on cup draws and luck to get through the season. Last season we got both - this season is only being caused by the absence of one of those.

So what situation would we be in, if we didn't have the cup money and had the same rolling injury backlog? That thought exercise alone should be enough for people to recognise that the current model is not fit for purpose. 

Our 'direct competitors' are willing to subsidise full-time football through 'investment' - i.e. writing off losses. We are in no position to do that and nor should we try. How many near death experiences do you want the club to go through before it sinks in? 

I completely reject the argument that part time football means decline, but lifting Kirk Broadfoot out of the Lowland League because there's no c**t else available to sign within our reach in mid-July is progress. This club was a semi-professional outfit for most of its history - yours is indeed the arrogant, Rae-era refusal to face hard reality. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by vikingTON

[baba douche]

Just popped for a read, and got to say that V'TON is actually making some sensible comments about how to run a club at this level. I don't agree with some of it (don't think you'll get a good enough pool of part-time players from the local area, and part-time players probably can't travel as far for games/training), but there are valid points.

 

Shame it takes you being bottom of the league for him to become less of a walloper, but if that's the price to pay...

Edited November 16, 2023 by baba douche
Keeps defaulting to 'virginton'

[Ferguson]

I could definitely get behind a hybrid setup, similar to that of Airdrie and Raith a couple of years ago. As said above the current market we're shopping in is leaving us with 39 year old duds last seen playing for a podcast, find it hard to believe there are no part-time players that would do a better job for less money to compliment a core of full time players.

[RAITHROVERS84]

When I look at the age and lack of quality of your back line it makes me think of 2 of our CB’s that departed us over last 18 months.

Kyle Benedictus - left is season before last and dropped a division with Pars. Standout player for them and instrumental in them conceding so few goals on the way to the title. We missed him big style last year when Berra chucked it pre-season. Still their top boy in defence.

Tom Lang - Dropped down to league 1 this summer with Falkirk and absolutely strolling it. 

Really made me think how bad is some of the scouting that players of that calibre were able to be picked up by league 1 teams and nobody came if for them in the Championship. In a different position you can add Brad Spencer to the list. 

Yes finances obviously play a part but by all accounts Benedictus is a grand a week and the pars offered a 2 year deal to our 1.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

11 hours ago, virginton said:

You've missed Harkness, Wilson and Waters in from that selective account of players signed to cover defensive positions since May. 

It is beyond ridiculous that people continue to claim that we haven't signed enough defensive players, when we've spent a significant amount of time, effort and money doing just that. It is not Imrie's fault that we are now on our fourth long-term defensive injury - and the second one for O'Connor. 

Well no, because you claimed that the budget was sufficient to fix the defence before the cup draw was made. Three of those four signings would not have came in at all had we been papped out of the cup in the group stage, or got a less lucrative draw - because the budget wasn't there. 

Which means that the actual operating budget Imrie was working with at the start of the season was enough for the okay but paper thin squad put out in July. That was what we were actually relying on to get through the entire season. You cannot spin away that reality. 

It's not legitimate to bemoan signings that turned out to be unsuccessful, when you and indeed pretty much everyone was happy for those signings to be made at the time. That is indeed hindsight judgment and not fair criticism.

Took you a bit longer than usual to reach the 'just making stuff up' stage, but here we are...

Harkness, as you know, has never kicked a ball for us.

Waters, as you know, was here last season.

And Wilson, as you know, isn't a defender; he's been forced into covering various positions at the back, because... well, because we don't have enough defenders. Try to keep up, eh?

And ditch the deflection about before/after the League Cup: my only point is that the squad, as it stands, at the end of this summer's transfer business, isn't strong enough in defensive areas. To say it's 'beyond ridiculous' to claim we don't have enough defenders when we actually don't have enough defenders is... well, beyond ridiculous.

But you know this and are clearly just addicted to arguing for arguing's sake.

I particularly enjoyed your 'point' that it's 'not legitimate' to watch individual players and the team as a whole before making a judgement; that's as close to the definition of legitimate as you're likely to get (the alternative would be instant judgement of players we've never seen play for Morton, and ongoing instant judgements of what a squad will actually end up looking like... in other words, the defintion of daft). For the record, I thought Power would be a good signing for us and was mystified as to why we signed Wilson; thus far, I'm happy to admit that I was wrong about both... but that doesn't change the overall point about squad balance at all.

Summary: we're chronically short at the back and will get relegated if we don't address that. Everybody else can see that, but your unique insight into football leads you to a different conclusion. Lucky you.

[Alibi]

The happy medium is probably a hybrid set up with both full time and part time players.  Part time players would most likely be fairly local, already living in the area; full time players are in a better position to move as they don't have to worry about maintaining their current employment.  Our most successful teams over the last 60 years had part timers involved - might even have been completely part time in the 60s.  Allowing part time players widens our range of candidates.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

11 hours ago, virginton said:

GMFC would be near the top of semi-professional talent pool as opposed to the bottom feeders in the full-time pecking order. By not hearing the violins playing about 'mah family and the mortgage to pay' every summer, the first-team budget can be stretched further across more players (with two sources of income rather than just football), which allows for a credible squad  that isn't reliant on cup draws and luck to get through the season. Last season we got both - this season is only being caused by the absence of one of those.

So what situation would we be in, if we didn't have the cup money and had the same rolling injury backlog? That thought exercise alone should be enough for people to recognise that the current model is not fit for purpose. 

Our 'direct competitors' are willing to subsidise full-time football through 'investment' - i.e. writing off losses. We are in no position to do that and nor should we try. How many near death experiences do you want the club to go through before it sinks in? 

I completely reject the argument that part time football means decline, but lifting Kirk Broadfoot out of the Lowland League because there's no c**t else available to sign within our reach in mid-July is progress. This club was a semi-professional outfit for most of its history - yours is indeed the arrogant, Rae-era refusal to face hard reality. 

So what would this magical 'credible first-team squad' at the top of the 'semi-professional talent pool' actually look like?

Who are these players we might sign in greater quantity because they have a second source of income outside football? Are they better or worse than the players we currently have?

On a different note, what is your problem with professional footballers earning enough to pay their mortgages?

You completely reject the argument that part-time football means decline, but, same as when this came up before, you're completely unable to outline how a part-time set-up will allow us to compete at this level. The strong likelihood is that we'd find ourselves 'competing' regularly at the level below and everything beyond that is speculation: we don't know what impact that might have on support, we don't know what impact that might have on commercial development (although we do know what impact it will have on prize money).

The attempt to cast this as 'anybody who wants us to stay full-time also wants us to run up losses and risk going out of business' is pathetic and dishonest. Nobody, as far as I know, who's part of MCT is even remotely nostalgic for the Rae-era.

Maybe you should make a proposal to the next general meeting, see what kind of response it gets?

3 hours ago, baba douche said:

Just popped for a read, and got to say that V'TON is actually making some sensible comments about how to run a club at this level. I don't agree with some of it (don't think you'll get a good enough pool of part-time players from the local area, and part-time players probably can't travel as far for games/training), but there are valid points.

 

 

The only sensible comment is that we have to live within our means... but everybody knows that.

You yourself appear to be aware that there's no way we'd be able to put together a good enough squad from the accessible part-time pool. It's just a daft, reactive response that comes out whenever we're not doing very well.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

11 minutes ago, Alibi said:

The happy medium is probably a hybrid set up with both full time and part time players.  Part time players would most likely be fairly local, already living in the area; full time players are in a better position to move as they don't have to worry about maintaining their current employment.  Our most successful teams over the last 60 years had part timers involved - might even have been completely part time in the 60s.  Allowing part time players widens our range of candidates.

We'd be daft to rule out trying to incorporate the odd part-time player who's good enough, but unless there's a big shift across football at this level that makes part-time the norm (as it was at certain points), we're talking exceptions, rather than the rule.

My take on 'hybrid' is that you go for a set-up that intentionally balances more experienced players on competitive wages and 'development' players. We obviously can't afford to assemble a squad of 22 or even 20 of the former, so you look at some kind of balance: 16 + 4, 16 + 5 (maybe even 16 + 6 if you're lucky; or, from the opposite point of view, 18 + 4). And if you're lucky enough to find a McKenna or an O'Brien in the immediate area, all the better.

That would also go some way to balancing the sometimes daft arguments about 'youth' (that is, some people's misty-eyed idea that we should 'bring through our own' for the sake of it, against other people's idea that if they're not ready for first-team football right away, there's no point). The likes of King (or, dare I say it, McGregor) wouldn't be expected to play week in, week out, but they're fully integrated parts of the squad... and, when there's an injury crisis, they're the guys who're expected to step up.

The manager then has to look at recruitment through two different lenses and use the budget he has accordingly: we'd still look to sign guys like Crawford or MacDonald; but we're also looking to bring through small numbers from our own development pool who are good enough (as well as bringing in one or two who fall out of development programmes at clubs higher up the food chain).

If we're ever going to get the required balance of quality and quantity on our budget, that surely is it.

[moses1924]

13 hours ago, virginton said:

GMFC would be near the top of semi-professional talent pool as opposed to the bottom feeders in the full-time pecking order

Lots of discusion around this over the last 10 years, i've always agreed with your approach above that it is better to have the best part time players than the worst full time but the club feel differently and I think it is just Gallagher who is part time (which seems to work fine). 

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, RAITHROVERS84 said:

When I look at the age and lack of quality of your back line it makes me think of 2 of our CB’s that departed us over last 18 months.

Kyle Benedictus - left is season before last and dropped a division with Pars. Standout player for them and instrumental in them conceding so few goals on the way to the title. We missed him big style last year when Berra chucked it pre-season. Still their top boy in defence.

Tom Lang - Dropped down to league 1 this summer with Falkirk and absolutely strolling it. 

Really made me think how bad is some of the scouting that players of that calibre were able to be picked up by league 1 teams and nobody came if for them in the Championship. In a different position you can add Brad Spencer to the list. 

Yes finances obviously play a part but by all accounts Benedictus is a grand a week and the pars offered a 2 year deal to our 1.

Benedictus going to Dunfermline when they were in League One and Lang & Spencer going Falkirk doesn't say anything about poor recruitment from any Championship clubs, it's just a reflection on both clubs comfortably outspending several sides in the Championship and in Morton's case massively outspending us. Even in their fifth year down there with the losses piling up, Falkirk will have well over double our budget.

[Passionate]

4 hours ago, Ferguson said:

I could definitely get behind a hybrid setup, similar to that of Airdrie and Raith a couple of years ago. As said above the current market we're shopping in is leaving us with 39 year old duds last seen playing for a podcast, find it hard to believe there are no part-time players that would do a better job for less money to compliment a core of full time players.

Airdrie still technically run the hybrid,  we only have one Part timer and that is Calum Gallagher,  we still train as a hybrid Monday , Tuesday nights,  Thursday nights, and Friday,  therein lies the biggest problem it is getting experienced Full time players to buy into the changes in training etc,  might not sound much but if you have experienced players and lifestyle of training 2 hours a morning 4 days a week, many don't want to change,  remember we offered and agreed terms with Grant Gillespie 4 seasons back and never signed due to the hybrid training..( that was the reason given at the time(..

 

Where do Morton train,  Parklea

[Chippyminton]

On 14/11/2023 at 19:07, Bigmouth Strikes Again said:

How's Tyler French getting on? Hopefully he will be set free from this shitemare in January.

Thank you.

 

I remember posting on the Dees forum awhile ago, telling yous how well Tyler had done on his first couple of outings with us. It’s deteriorated badly since then, to the extent that another Ton fan’s description of him on here as ‘rank rotten’ is pretty accurate. He’s practically off the radar at the moment and shows no sign of the flair, solidity and pace I know he’s well capable of. Maybe last season’s leg break isn’t as far down the healing road as we thought.

[Ferguson]

9 minutes ago, Chippyminton said:

I remember posting on the Dees forum awhile ago, telling yous how well Tyler had done on his first couple of outings with us. It’s deteriorated badly since then, to the extent that another Ton fan’s description of him on here as ‘rank rotten’ is pretty accurate. He’s practically off the radar at the moment and shows no sign of the flair, solidity and pace I know he’s well capable of. Maybe last season’s leg break isn’t as far down the healing road as we thought.

On top of that he's even been struggling to make basic 10 yard passes, looks like a player who badly needs a couple of weeks on the bench but we're a long way away from having that option just now.

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Took you a bit longer than usual to reach the 'just making stuff up' stage, but here we are...

Harkness, as you know, has never kicked a ball for us.

So what? He was signed to strengthen the defence by Imrie. You are complaining that Imrie didn't do enough to add stronger defensive options.

Unless you're embibing the Davie Irons' conspiracy that the manager is deliberately injuring his own players, you cannot magically exclude Harkness because it utterly contradicts your argument.

Quote

Waters, as you know, was here last season.

So what? He had to be signed on a permanent basis the summer. Strapp didn't kick a ball from January onwards but that didn't stop you chucking him into the out pile.

One rule for you then and another rule for others. 

Quote

And Wilson, as you know, isn't a defender; he's been forced into covering various positions at the back, because... well, because we don't have enough defenders. Try to keep up, eh?

Wilson was explicitly brought in to cover at right back position from the very first game of his return. He was not signed to strengthen our central midfield options (although of course he can play there too) - he was brought in because his utility was needed to plug the gaping lack of squad depth. Caused by injuries and a crap budget. 

Once again, you cannot wave away facts because they don't fit your dreadful argument. 

Quote

And ditch the deflection about before/after the League Cup: my only point is that the squad, as it stands, at the end of this summer's transfer business, isn't strong enough in defensive areas.

Except that wasn't your only point. You claimed that the original budget was good enough for Imrie to have a stronger defence with better squad depth. It patently was not which is presumably why you tried to chuck shite at the wall about Power and MacDonald signing later on. 

Quote

To say it's 'beyond ridiculous' to claim we don't have enough defenders when we actually don't have enough defenders is... well, beyond ridiculous.

We don't have enough defenders because they've been repeatedly fucking injured since the Stranraer League Cup game. Again unless you're playing the deliberate injuries line, how is that the manager's fault? 

Quote

I particularly enjoyed your 'point' that it's 'not legitimate' to watch individual players and the team as a whole before making a judgement; that's as close to the definition of legitimate as you're likely to get (the alternative would be instant judgement of players we've never seen play for Morton, and ongoing instant judgements of what a squad will actually end up looking like... in other words, the defintion of daft). 

^^^ word salad 

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

So what would this magical 'credible first-team squad' at the top of the 'semi-professional talent pool' actually look like?

Who are these players we might sign in greater quantity because they have a second source of income outside football? Are they better or worse than the players we currently have?

They're undoubtedly better than Kirk fucking Broadfoot, which is why we're en route to doing a Queen of the South and preening over our full-time setup beneath half a dozen 'diddy' teams in the league below. 

Quote

On a different note, what is your problem with professional footballers earning enough to pay their mortgages?

A: The funds needed to pay for that lifestyle choice alone is not even remotely sustainable at GMFC's level of the game, and also represents abysmal value for money given the amount of time put into 'full-time training' and quality shown on the park. The difference between professional and semi-professional in both respects is non-existent at our level of the game. 

Quote

You completely reject the argument that part-time football means decline, but, same as when this came up before, you're completely unable to outline how a part-time set-up will allow us to compete at this level. The strong likelihood is that we'd find ourselves 'competing' regularly at the level below and everything beyond that is speculation: we don't know what impact that might have on support, we don't know what impact that might have on commercial development (although we do know what impact it will have on prize money).

There's absolutely no reason why part-time football would impact commercial revenue or the support levels - as opposed to the magnificent job that this season's plucky full-time effort is doing in sloughing hundreds off the gate most weeks. 

Your assertion that part time football requires a specific plan for competitiveness is proven false by the ability of other clubs to do just that. It is the stark and abject failure of the current model at GMFC to put a reliable squad together each season that needs a coherent plan to fix it. I'm not holding my breath on that. 

Quote

Maybe you should make a proposal to the next general meeting, see what kind of response it gets?

A proposal to *what* general meeting that would have *what* binding purpose? 

Is that how you propose to run the football club now - having anyone who challenges your horseshit on here be required to change the club's policy?

Edited November 16, 2023 by vikingTON

[baba douche]

[Chippyminton]

Morton PB forum x 5 most important rules;

1 = Don't pick an argument with VT.

2 = See rule 1.

3 = See rule 1.

4 = See rule 1.

5 = See rule 1.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

17 hours ago, virginton said:

So what? He was signed to strengthen the defence by Imrie. You are complaining that Imrie didn't do enough to add stronger defensive options.

Unless you're embibing the Davie Irons' conspiracy that the manager is deliberately injuring his own players, you cannot magically exclude Harkness because it utterly contradicts your argument.

So what? He had to be signed on a permanent basis the summer. Strapp didn't kick a ball from January onwards but that didn't stop you chucking him into the out pile.

One rule for you then and another rule for others. 

Wilson was explicitly brought in to cover at right back position from the very first game of his return. He was not signed to strengthen our central midfield options (although of course he can play there too) - he was brought in because his utility was needed to plug the gaping lack of squad depth. Caused by injuries and a crap budget. 

Once again, you cannot wave away facts because they don't fit your dreadful argument. 

Except that wasn't your only point. You claimed that the original budget was good enough for Imrie to have a stronger defence with better squad depth. It patently was not which is presumably why you tried to chuck shite at the wall about Power and MacDonald signing later on. 

We don't have enough defenders because they've been repeatedly fucking injured since the Stranraer League Cup game. Again unless you're playing the deliberate injuries line, how is that the manager's fault? 

^^^ word salad 

I'll take your increasingly pathological tendency to make stuff up as confirmation that you don't have any argument to offer (which isn't really surprising, I suppose, considering there's no serious counter-argument to be made).

Thanks for playing and see you next time.

17 hours ago, virginton said:

They're undoubtedly better than Kirk fucking Broadfoot, which is why we're en route to doing a Queen of the South and preening over our full-time setup beneath half a dozen 'diddy' teams in the league below. 

A: The funds needed to pay for that lifestyle choice alone is not even remotely sustainable at GMFC's level of the game, and also represents abysmal value for money given the amount of time put into 'full-time training' and quality shown on the park. The difference between professional and semi-professional in both respects is non-existent at our level of the game. 

There's absolutely no reason why part-time football would impact commercial revenue or the support levels - as opposed to the magnificent job that this season's plucky full-time effort is doing in sloughing hundreds off the gate most weeks. 

Your assertion that part time football requires a specific plan for competitiveness is proven false by the ability of other clubs to do just that. It is the stark and abject failure of the current model at GMFC to put a reliable squad together each season that needs a coherent plan to fix it. I'm not holding my breath on that. 

A proposal to *what* general meeting that would have *what* binding purpose? 

Is that how you propose to run the football club now - having anyone who challenges your horseshit on here be required to change the club's policy?

Disappointing.

I was looking forward to the power-point, setting out all the arguments you're no doubt reluctant to make on here for reasons of confidentiality, followed by you being carried shoulder high from the room for having saved the club through your brilliant proposition of... part-time fitba.

Send in the clowns, right enough.

13 hours ago, Chippyminton said:

Morton PB forum x 5 most important rules;

1 = Don't pick an argument with VT.

2 = See rule 1.

3 = See rule 1.

4 = See rule 1.

5 = See rule 1.

Eh, I didn't.

And you forgot about rule no. 6 (which everybody knows is the only rule that matters...).

[vikingTON]

8 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

I'll take your increasingly pathological tendency to make stuff up as confirmation that you don't have any argument to offer (which isn't really surprising, I suppose, considering there's no serious counter-argument to be made).

As documented by the grand total of, err, zero points you show as having been 'made up', prior to your flounce away with your tail between your legs.