Where Has

[Fellow Traveller]

If you put it like that...

 

But let's not pretend there is unfairness here. These agreements are fairly standard, they were voluntarily entered in to, the money has been used in good faith and exclusively for its intended purpose. No need to grovel, but in genuine cases of severe financial hardship we have the discretion to repay, and have done so - without controversy - in the past.

Discretion only, even in cases of hardship. Not obligation. When we put our £500 in we all knew what we were doing. Some people are now trying to rewrite history.........................FT

[Wee Dublin End]

I'll accept £20 and a sausage supper from the Trust for my loan-note.

[Mr H Palms]

who stole the money?????

[Fellow Traveller]

I'll accept £20 and a sausage supper from the Trust for my loan-note.

Sounds like a fair offer to me, but remember thats only my personal opinion and not to be taken etc etc.............................FT

[Ghost]

who stole the money?????

 

Good film that, CASH, Sean Bean

[Alibi]

1. Morton did indeed have a share issue where some of the money which was to be raised was to be used to erect the stand at the WDE. Of the 1 million shares available only 11,766 were sold as of 30th May 2010 raising less than £9000. Only 200 had been sold in the year to may 2010.

If my memory is correct I asked about this at the AGM at the end of 2009 and was assured by the chairman and the stadium director that the stand would go ahead whether the shares were sold or not.

2. Depends on whether the shares sell or not and at what price they sell. Share are only worth what someone will pay for them. Know what I mean.........................FT

 

Are the shares still for sale?

[Fellow Traveller]

Are the shares still for sale?

Ali, As far as I know they still are. They were priced at 75p each (not great value considering the last available balance sheet)and I think you had to buy a minimum quantity of about £100 or so. Im sure Gillian will have all the details.............................FT

[Rhubarb Mess]

Nothing in what you say contradicts my statement.

Boards of all companies are made up of individuals who have differing views. Nothing that a trust board member does or says in a private and individual capacity represents the views or policy of the Trust and everything posted on here by a Trust board member, unless it is expressly quoting a decision made by a Trust board meeting, should ever have been assumed to be the position of the Trust. In fact on several occassions Trust board members went out of their way to make it clear that they were expressing personal opinions. I think it may have suited some people (not you) to deliberately confuse this......................FT

 

Must just be me who got the impression almost the entire board of the GMST were in agreement. Some may well have tried to distance this from the trust but others used the position to speak as though from the trust board.

 

RM, I dont know what you mean by what went on so I dont know if it had anything to do with the Trust so I dont really know what answer it deserves or from whom?!.................FT

 

I'm sure it will all come out in time.

 

Dont tell me your surprised that FT and cmdc have different views on some things and that sometimes these are contradictory. Everybody is entitled to their own personal view. The Trust is a democracy and even when a majority express their view that doesn't mean the minority are forced to agree................FT

 

hmmm, ok. I think you may mean when a minority express their view the majority agree whether they like it or not, or even if they are aware of it as WDE suggests communication was at a minimum.

[puggsy_ton]

I'm sure it will all come out in time.

 

There you go again!

 

Either say you know something and say it or stop! Trolling of the highest order!

[Fellow Traveller]

hmmm, ok. I think you may mean when a minority express their view the majority agree whether they like it or not, or even if they are aware of it as WDE suggests communication was at a minimum.

Yep. That seems to be the way most democracies work. Sky Channel 504 for some prime examples.

As my wife keeps reminding me: The majority is almost always wrong..............................FT

[HamCam]

I think I have made clear my disillusionment with the Trust from the early days and maybe one of the few not directly as a result of the 79 saga. I let my annual membership lapse years ago and see no reason to rejoin despite being a loanholder. I however have no sympathy with those who wish to see their loanholder stake repaid.

 

Unless I am missing something it was explicit from the outset that the money from loanholders was going towards buying shares - about the only thing they have delivered on! It was never intended to be some form of flexible loan to be repaid as and when requested by the loanholder and certainly not because someone has fallen out of love with the Trust.

 

The outcome that appears to have been overlooked by all was the dilution of the value of the shares acquired as further shares were issued to help club finances. Not sure though that there was much alternative as the club hemorrhaged cash - we could of course do a Rangers!

 

 

[Rasta Ton]

This is mostly wrong.

 

I have explained above why loan notes have to be locked in. They were used to acquire a non liquid asset. Morton is a private company and we cannot simply sell shares to order. There has to be a buyer and then the sale transaction has to be approved by the board of GMFC before it can go through. It is not like selling shares in a listed company.

 

Could you repay your mortgage on demand? Could you repay your mortgage without being able to sell your house? The answer is probably no to both questions but fortunately, if you keep your end of the bargain with the building society, the building society can't demand repayment. In our case, the trust has kept its end of the bargain with its lenders, the loan note holders in that we used their money to buy shares in Morton.

 

We have of course the provision that we can opt to repay a loan note in cases of genuine financial hardship and have done so in the past but the decision rests with the board and each case is taken on its merits.

 

As for the shares being more valuable, Morton have been losing North of £400k per annum for years now. Those losses were re-capitalised by Golden Casket but not for the last few years. Their loan will currently be at least £1.5m and every years losses increase that and reduce the value of our shares more. We have reached the position now that in this year's accounts the shares may have to be reduced to below their cost price because of the state of GMFC's finances.

 

A poor analogy as the bank get their money back through repayments - they give me a loan to buy a house (a non liquid asset) and over time I pay back with interest. The trust on the other hand borrow money and don't repay it. It is therefore not a loan is it?

 

As for the share value it was one of the trust board members who stated earlier in this thread that the value of shares was greater than the total value of the loans. That was what I was referring to.

 

[Rasta Ton]

This is mostly wrong.

 

I have explained above why loan notes have to be locked in. They were used to acquire a non liquid asset. Morton is a private company and we cannot simply sell shares to order. There has to be a buyer and then the sale transaction has to be approved by the board of GMFC before it can go through. It is not like selling shares in a listed company.

 

Could you repay your mortgage on demand? Could you repay your mortgage without being able to sell your house? The answer is probably no to both questions but fortunately, if you keep your end of the bargain with the building society, the building society can't demand repayment. In our case, the trust has kept its end of the bargain with its lenders, the loan note holders in that we used their money to buy shares in Morton.

 

We have of course the provision that we can opt to repay a loan note in cases of genuine financial hardship and have done so in the past but the decision rests with the board and each case is taken on its merits.

 

As for the shares being more valuable, Morton have been losing North of £400k per annum for years now. Those losses were re-capitalised by Golden Casket but not for the last few years. Their loan will currently be at least £1.5m and every years losses increase that and reduce the value of our shares more. We have reached the position now that in this year's accounts the shares may have to be reduced to below their cost price because of the state of GMFC's finances.

 

A poor analogy as the bank get their money back through repayments - they give me a loan to buy a house (a non liquid asset) and over time I pay back with interest. The trust on the other hand borrow money and don't repay it. It is therefore not a loan is it?

 

As for the share value it was one of the trust board members who stated earlier in this thread that the value of shares was greater than the total value of the loans. That was what I was referring to.

 

[Rhubarb Mess]

Yep. That seems to be the way most democracies work. Sky Channel 504 for some prime examples.

As my wife keeps reminding me: The majority is almost always wrong..............................FT

 

[Rhubarb Mess]

There you go again!

 

Either say you know something and say it or stop! Trolling of the highest order!

 

 

The adults are speaking.

[ianton]

 

The adults are speaking.

 

 

[Wee Dublin End]

I think I have made clear my disillusionment with the Trust from the early days and maybe one of the few not directly as a result of the 79 saga. I let my annual membership lapse years ago and see no reason to rejoin despite being a loanholder. I however have no sympathy with those who wish to see their loanholder stake repaid.

 

Unless I am missing something it was explicit from the outset that the money from loanholders was going towards buying shares - about the only thing they have delivered on! It was never intended to be some form of flexible loan to be repaid as and when requested by the loanholder and certainly not because someone has fallen out of love with the Trust.

 

The outcome that appears to have been overlooked by all was the dilution of the value of the shares acquired as further shares were issued to help club finances. Not sure though that there was much alternative as the club hemorrhaged cash - we could of course do a Rangers!

 

Hey Hamcam. I requested my £500 back. Expect it back, of course not.

 

GMST : Jim McColl, Stuart Duncan : Representatives on the board ? NOT IN MY NAME. Good people, sure, absolutely but they both done my nut in with their ''I'm in charge'' and ''you've had your say'' mentality.

 

Victory to the common fan

[Tonsilitis]

A poor analogy as the bank get their money back through repayments - they give me a loan to buy a house (a non liquid asset) and over time I pay back with interest. The trust on the other hand borrow money and don't repay it. It is therefore not a loan is it?

 

As for the share value it was one of the trust board members who stated earlier in this thread that the value of shares was greater than the total value of the loans. That was what I was referring to.

It is a loan repayable on winding up the trust. That was the deal at the outset and no one going into a loan note was told otherwise. I fact they all signed a document setting out these terms. My analogy is simply that the trust has stuck with its end of that bargain and so loan note holders have to stick to theirs.

[Alibi]

It is a loan repayable on winding up the trust. That was the deal at the outset and no one going into a loan note was told otherwise. I fact they all signed a document setting out these terms. My analogy is simply that the trust has stuck with its end of that bargain and so loan note holders have to stick to theirs.

I don't remember signing anything. Let's just minimise the amount raked off by these legal ****s.

[Rhubarb Mess]

My analogy is simply that the trust has stuck with its end of that bargain and so loan note holders have to stick to theirs.

 

Looking at the post made by WDE i'm wondering what the trusts end of the bargain was, or is!

 

As you say, after lending the £500 we heard nothing, no membership reminders , nothing.

 

After the initial loan-note holder drive the Trust seemed to focus only on £10 a year members. I've not heard them try and get new loan-note holders for many years.