Supporters Uniting

[capitanus]

Your opinion and my opinion really don't matter much. The value of Cappielow will only ever be truly tested if it comes up for sale and in what circumstances. In a forced sale if the club were bust, I doubt even if you would get £1.5m. If the club were sold as a going concern, it might get near book value or if a interested buyer wanted it e.g. A supermarket, it could go for more - not that I am suggesting in such an over supplied area for supermarkets, that is likely.

 

The point is, it will only be tested if it is sold.

 

So, are you agreeing that the underlying value of the asset which is on Morton FC's balance sheet is exaggerated?

 

So, lets assume a conservative/generous valuation of Cappielow to be £1.5m -

Lets add these to your other figures:

 

Additions £166,337

Fixtures and fittings £264,092

Player registrations £29,167

Debts due £119,386

Cash £20,732

 

Total Assets: £2,099,714

 

Liabilities inc £1157348 due to Golden Casket: £1301665

 

Net Assets: £798,049

 

Shares In Issue: 4,011,766

 

Net Asset Value per Share: 19.89p

 

 

 

So, effectively we can safely say that the GMST's shareholding value as well as volume has been diluted in the Debt for Equity swap. There is an ocean between the 55p NAV that has been suggested and the true value of the GMST's shareholding in Morton FC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rhubarb Mess]

Seems that you would like to tell them - get on with it.

 

 

So you make the assumption because I posted whether they knew or not that I want to tell them???

 

'Snitching' is not my style!!

 

It was just good to see that it appeared not to have been streamed live as video., you know, the thing you denied has ever happened.

 

 

[Andy M]

So you make the assumption because I posted whether they knew or not that I want to tell them???

 

'Snitching' is not my style!!

 

It was just good to see that it appeared not to have been streamed live as video., you know, the thing you denied has ever happened.

 

Anybody with any sense knows what you are trying to do. Why post about it at all if you dont want anyone to know about it?

 

You were told before that the webcast was never streamed as video.

[chrissiboi]

Chrissiboi, with all due respect you know nothing about the substance of the case, or about the decision making behind it, the sist, and any future development. This talk of 'technicalities' is uninformed nonsense, frankly.

So you will be going for a full proof hearing ?

 

Are you denying the defenders are actively seeking the sist be overturned ?

 

 

The only way you will vindicate yourselves is by seeking a conclusion that will either prove or disprove the very public allegiations, ok made by individuals but they were connected with the Trust .

 

We have watched as the police investigated which fell short and left more questions at the Trust's door, then the civil action which the new board continued so you made a conscious decision to seek a conclusion that would prove the correct action was taken.

 

You say uninformed nonsense but how can it be when the Mad Doc seems to call your move before your own members do.

 

So if it is not a technicality then what is it ? if you are correct and the lawyers fees will be as cheap as chips as has been reported then really the confidence the Trust would retain would certainly be worth such a poultry sum.

 

It would prove to all your decision making is not comprimised and finally you could move on.

 

 

 

[Rhubarb Mess]

Anybody with any sense knows what you are trying to do. Why post about it at all if you dont want anyone to know about it?

 

You were told before that the webcast was never streamed as video.

 

And that still doesn't make the statement true.

 

Maybe it was called something else, or maybe the fans who tuned in to at least 2 'live stream' games where imagining things. Maybe there is another big Andy, who knows, who cares.

[capitanus]

My answer is already posted and I did not disagree with you altogether. As a commentator on financial matters though, you proved your complete knowledge with your understanding of the mechanics of debt equity swaps.

 

A Debt for Equity swap is only of use if it removes a debt balance owed by the company. Therefore I agree with both yourself and Jim McColl, if you have assets of £1,000,000 and liabilities of £500,000 then your net worth is £500,000. Anyone that is paying a mortgage or a car loan etc. would be able to understand that.

 

The big problem for Morton FC is that the Debt for Equity swap didnt clear the debts, as the monies owed by Morton FC to Golden Casket are still there and a concerning millstone around the neck of the club and the club are continuing to make a loss going forward. It is simply unsustainable.

 

However,

 

In saying all that, I was one of very few folk who were voicing concerns about this as early as 2004 and the GMST who had representation on the board didnt seem to do much in the way of putting the brakes on some of the reckless spending and bad decisions by DDFR which have cost us dearly since then. Why are you suddenly voicing concern about this?

 

Is it a smokescreen to divert everyones attention away from your own troubles?

 

 

[Rasta Ton]

Your opinion and my opinion really don't matter much. The value of Cappielow will only ever be truly tested if it comes up for sale and in what circumstances. In a forced sale if the club were bust, I doubt even if you would get £1.5m. If the club were sold as a going concern, it might get near book value or if a interested buyer wanted it e.g. A supermarket, it could go for more - not that I am suggesting in such an over supplied area for supermarkets, that is likely.

 

The point is, it will only be tested if it is sold.

My opinion and granted it is that is at least based on professional experience. If anyone wanted to obtain land in the East End of Greenock for development, they just have to chap the door of RI and access a significant land bank for pretty much nothing and probably secure ground remedials and some infrastructure in to the bargain. Despite what you read about RI, if someone decent enough was looking to invest I have no doubt both they and the Scottish Govt would rubber stamp a package. Why anyone would pay a seven figure sum for land in that part of Greenock is completely beyond me. Whilst it's not the Old Kent Rd of Greenock, it's not far off. It doesn't have much of a frontage on to the A8, it is landlocked on 3 sides and any significant retail development would give major traffic issues which a site of that size in that location would be unable to support.

[Andy M]

And that still doesn't make the statement true.

 

Maybe it was called something else, or maybe the fans who tuned in to at least 2 'live stream' games where imagining things. Maybe there is another big Andy, who knows, who cares.

 

The webcasts have ALWAYS been an audio/text only service. Any work I did regarding video had nothing to do with the webcasts. Having said that, the SFL may well be advised to think again if what i gleaned from my tests are accurate.

[Tonsilitis]

A Debt for Equity swap is only of use if it removes a debt balance owed by the company. Therefore I agree with both yourself and Jim McColl, if you have assets of £1,000,000 and liabilities of £500,000 then your net worth is £500,000. Anyone that is paying a mortgage or a car loan etc. would be able to understand that.

 

The big problem for Morton FC is that the Debt for Equity swap didnt clear the debts, as the monies owed by Morton FC to Golden Casket are still there and a concerning millstone around the neck of the club and the club are continuing to make a loss going forward. It is simply unsustainable.

 

However,

 

In saying all that, I was one of very few folk who were voicing concerns about this as early as 2004 and the GMST who had representation on the board didnt seem to do much in the way of putting the brakes on some of the reckless spending and bad decisions by DDFR which have cost us dearly since then. Why are you suddenly voicing concern about this?

 

Is it a smokescreen to divert everyones attention away from your own troubles?

What troubles are those? If you are referring to the court case, all will become clear in due course but there is a lot of misinformation about what is going on, including the major issue described as a technicality by the ill informed.

 

As for the debt, it was removed in full at the last share issue but the key issue is the volume of losses the club makes every year which means that the debt has built up again in the last couple of years. That is the true issue that needs addressed!

[Rhubarb Mess]

The webcasts have ALWAYS been an audio/text only service. Any work I did regarding video had nothing to do with the webcasts. Having said that, the SFL may well be advised to think again if what i gleaned from my tests are accurate.

 

 

OK, i'll need to inform my pals that the TWO games they watched online were a figment of their imagination or that they have made the wrong assumption of who they thought screened these.

 

Good for you, take it back to the SFL and fight your case.

[capitanus]

What troubles are those? If you are referring to the court case, all will become clear in due course but there is a lot of misinformation about what is going on, including the major issue described as a technicality by the ill informed.

 

As for the debt, it was removed in full at the last share issue but the key issue is the volume of losses the club makes every year which means that the debt has built up again in the last couple of years. That is the true issue that needs addressed!

 

Therefore the Debt for Equity swap was not a good thing for the GMST, as it not only diluted their shareholding, but it also decreased the value of the shares held by the GMST going forward. I was right.

 

 

[HamCam]

Not wishing to pish on your parade but all most of you seem to be demonstrating is a lack of understanding on the basis of valuation in the Club's accounts - it is not market value!

 

As FT mentioned earlier the update in the accounts was 98/99 and the revaluation of property assets was under the HS regime. The benefit of the revaluation was to improve the books and also allow money to be drawn down against asset value - what was always of more interest to me was what happened to the money that was borrowed against the stadium number.

 

Even on the cost basis the figure in the book is clearly over-stated but the fall in value is not as dramatic as some would have you believe ie they are talking shyte

 

Cap you need to help me out here. Previously you have clearly told anyone who would listen that you no longer support Morton so why do you hang around a fans forum ? Its not as if you are even offering up much wisdom just sniping away at folk who do care about the Club.

[Andy M]

OK, i'll need to inform my pals that the TWO games they watched online were a figment of their imagination or that they have made the wrong assumption of who they thought screened these.

 

Good for you, take it back to the SFL and fight your case.

 

Go tell your pals whatever you like. I've made it quite clear to you that there was no video on the webcasts, but you obviously cant accept that.

 

Deary me - why dont you just go back to what you started this thread for - Trust bashing.

 

I can take all the sh1t you throw at me - that doesnt matter, but dont mix it up with the other rubbish you are spouting.

[Rhubarb Mess]

In saying all that, I was one of very few folk who were voicing concerns about this as early as 2004 and the GMST who had representation on the board didnt seem to do much in the way of putting the brakes on some of the reckless spending and bad decisions by DDFR which have cost us dearly since then. Why are you suddenly voicing concern about this?

 

Is it a smokescreen to divert everyones attention away from your own troubles?

 

 

Don't go there!! We all remember clearly who vioced concerns on here are were ridiculed every time this was done.

 

Hindsight my dear fellow, or ignorance as those who once ripped doubters up who now expect us all to fall into line.

 

What troubles are those? If you are referring to the court case, all will become clear in due course but there is a lot of misinformation about what is going on, including the major issue described as a technicality by the ill informed.

 

As for the debt, it was removed in full at the last share issue but the key issue is the volume of losses the club makes every year which means that the debt has built up again in the last couple of years. That is the true issue that needs addressed!

 

 

That will be the major issue pursued by yourself to prevent the case being heard in an open court.

 

And as for the debt, not only were concerns raised over the past 7 or 8 years about where this would take us but in the past 2 years when it became evident that the debt to GS was a rope around our necks anyone who brought it up were STILL lambasted by folk who now tell us we need to address it.

 

 

[Rasta Ton]

Not wishing to pish on your parade but all most of you seem to be demonstrating is a lack of understanding on the basis of valuation in the Club's accounts - it is not market value!

 

As FT mentioned earlier the update in the accounts was 98/99 and the revaluation of property assets was under the HS regime. The benefit of the revaluation was to improve the books and also allow money to be drawn down against asset value - what was always of more interest to me was what happened to the money that was borrowed against the stadium number.

 

Even on the cost basis the figure in the book is clearly over-stated but the fall in value is not as dramatic as some would have you believe ie they are talking shyte

 

Cap you need to help me out here. Previously you have clearly told anyone who would listen that you no longer support Morton so why do you hang around a fans forum ? Its not as if you are even offering up much wisdom just sniping away at folk who do care about the Club.

 

Surely you have duty to your shareholders to insert an accurate valuation or at least one based on professional standards? Other than market value, what sort of valuation would be deemed acceptable in a set of audited accounts? The only other one I can think of is a fictional one.

 

[HamCam]

Don't go there!! We all remember clearly who vioced concerns on here are were ridiculed every time this was done.

 

Hindsight my dear fellow, or ignorance as those who once ripped doubters up who now expect us all to fall into line.

That will be the major issue pursued by yourself to prevent the case being heard in an open court.

 

And as for the debt, not only were concerns raised over the past 7 or 8 years about where this would take us but in the past 2 years when it became evident that the debt to GS was a rope around our necks anyone who brought it up were STILL lambasted by folk who now tell us we need to address it.

 

RM I agree with most of your concerns but struggle as to what the options were other than a swap of debt for shares ? At the time our debt was wiped out the problem as Tonsilitis highlights is teh continuing absurdity of high annual losses for a team that is not performing on the park - if we had been Gretna and had scaled the heights of the SPL and a Cup Final you could at least make an argument for such a folly!

 

Ultimately we are in the hands of DDFR and no matter what we the fans of the Trust think it remains his ball and all that...

[Rhubarb Mess]

Go tell your pals whatever you like. I've made it quite clear to you that there was no video on the webcasts, but you obviously cant accept that.

 

Deary me - why dont you just go back to what you started this thread for - Trust bashing.

 

I can take all the sh1t you throw at me - that doesnt matter, but dont mix it up with the other rubbish you are spouting.

 

Ahh well, hit a nerve did I??

 

The trust bash themselves enough without my help....and have done since November 2009, nothing of my doing, all of their own.

 

OK, whomever streamed games live via a mobile attached to a wee laptop were bad boys indeed.

 

BTW big man, don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do, it falls on deaf ears.

 

[HamCam]

Surely you have duty to your shareholders to insert an accurate valuation or at least one based on professional standards? Other than market value, what sort of valuation would be deemed acceptable in a set of audited accounts? The only other one I can think of is a fictional one.

 

RT - there is nothing wrong with the valuation in the accounts - it meets all professional standards and requirements set by the powers that be.

 

The reason for it not being market value is that there is no/limited evidence of the market value of stadiums ie sales. The alternative approved by banks, auditors etc is a cost based valuation - every club that owns their stadium operates under a similar basis of valuation. Without such a figure in the accounts almost all clubs would be dead in the water.

[Rhubarb Mess]

RM I agree with most of your concerns but struggle as to what the options were other than a swap of debt for shares ? At the time our debt was wiped out the problem as Tonsilitis highlights is teh continuing absurdity of high annual losses for a team that is not performing on the park - if we had been Gretna and had scaled the heights of the SPL and a Cup Final you could at least make an argument for such a folly!

 

Ultimately we are in the hands of DDFR and no matter what we the fans of the Trust think it remains his ball and all that...

 

 

I'm not disputing that but you can probably remember how folk on here where taken to task when they dared to question the direction we were going under DDF's ownership.

 

be fair, most of the accumulated debt has got to be associated with the spectacular failings in the transfer market, the disgusting wages paid to bog standard players who never gave a hoot...and most of that sits at DDF's door.

 

He played Morton like a toy, wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds, then has the cheek to associate that debt to his own company. He wasted most of it (I'm not on about the ground improvements etc as that should be regarded as 'owed' back), he should pay for it.

[capitanus]

Not wishing to pish on your parade but all most of you seem to be demonstrating is a lack of understanding on the basis of valuation in the Club's accounts - it is not market value!

 

As FT mentioned earlier the update in the accounts was 98/99 and the revaluation of property assets was under the HS regime. The benefit of the revaluation was to improve the books and also allow money to be drawn down against asset value - what was always of more interest to me was what happened to the money that was borrowed against the stadium number.

 

Even on the cost basis the figure in the book is clearly over-stated but the fall in value is not as dramatic as some would have you believe ie they are talking shyte

 

Okay then, considering the land has restrictions against anything other than Sports/Recreation/Entertainment, it has very small (circa 40ft of thereabouts) Main Road frontage and is in an area where there is acres upon acres of undeveloped land available, why would anyone give us #2.88m, nay, #1.5m for Cappielow if it was on the market?

 

 

Cap you need to help me out here. Previously you have clearly told anyone who would listen that you no longer support Morton so why do you hang around a fans forum ? Its not as if you are even offering up much wisdom just sniping away at folk who do care about the Club.

 

Ach well, what can I say, but i'm a Boo Boy. One of the originals.

 

Once upon a time I considered myself a supporter of Morton FC but there were so many things that I was unhappy with, so I now consider myself to be a lapsed Morton supporter. Anyway, I dont need to justify myself to you, you dont mean anything to me.

 

 

 

 

Don't go there!! We all remember clearly who vioced concerns on here are were ridiculed every time this was done.

 

Hindsight my dear fellow, or ignorance as those who once ripped doubters up who now expect us all to fall into line.

 

 

Yes, like the Nickheads of this world. I am convinced he's angling for a seat on the board. There will be loads of others out there who will probably concur but probably wont say as much.

 

 

That will be the major issue pursued by yourself to prevent the case being heard in an open court.

 

And as for the debt, not only were concerns raised over the past 7 or 8 years about where this would take us but in the past 2 years when it became evident that the debt to GS was a rope around our necks anyone who brought it up were STILL lambasted by folk who now tell us we need to address it.

 

Its a smokescreen aimed at diverting your attention to the fact the GMST made a serious balls-up which may threaten the very existence of their precious organisation.