Fan Ownership - Morton Club Together

[TRVMP]

It was GC. Dougie controlled GC, but it was still GC, hence they hold the debt, and not his estate.

 

Edit: or to put it another way, if it's not GC's debt, how do they have a claim to it?

[irnbru]

It was GC. Dougie controlled GC, but it was still GC, hence they hold the debt, and not his estate.

 

Edit: or to put it another way, if it's not GC's debt, how do they have a claim to it?

Both Morton and GC were a one man show under him, now they aren't. Things change so why would the current shareholders pay for someone else's mistakes?

 

They seem to be willing to write off the debt, which it could be argued is morally right since they inherited (I assume) the shares, but they have no obligation whatsoever to Morton now and can't put their business and its staff at risk to subsidise another entity in the way he did.

[rex manning]

I don't really get your point here. Are you saying they should sustain losses?

 

As for whatever they do with shares if this takes off, that's going to need negotiatated and discussed. If they came out and said something that didn't go ahead it would potentially have an impact in their own shares.

 

MCT have their aims and broad support from the other stakeholders but until they have firm agreements in place GC won't be making any statements and I don't think anyone should expect them to.

I just want to know what the deal is with GC writing off the 2.5m accrued debt. I'm not talking about the ongoing losses. People at the Q&A thought Crawford had, and MCT are saying he's promised to 'do what he can' to write it off, if they raise £400k.

 

Does this mean he wont do what he can if they dont?

 

I'd like to know what doing what he can actually means?

 

Basically I have little interest in being any kind of shareholder, but If there actually was some clarity that raising this cash would make the 2.5m anchor around the club disappear then I would donate to that.

 

My main meandering point is that if the 2.5m still needs to be covered by any potential buyer then noone is going to buy the club. If GC rightly are not going to keep plugging gaps, but will still hold out for 2.5m, then we are in a much more critical state than I had realised.

[irnbru]

I just want to know what the deal is with GC writing off the 2.5m accrued debt. I'm not talking about the ongoing losses. People at the Q&A thought Crawford had, and MCT are saying he's promised to 'do what he can' to write it off, if they raise £400k.

 

Does this mean he wont do what he can if they dont?

 

I'd like to know what doing what he can actually means?

 

Basically I have little interest in being any kind of shareholder, but If there actually was some clarity that raising this cash would make the 2.5m anchor around the club disappear then I would donate to that.

 

My main meandering point is that if the 2.5m still needs to be covered by any potential buyer then noone is going to buy the club. If GC rightly are not going to keep plugging gaps, but will still hold out for 2.5m, then we are in a much more critical state than I had realised.

Crawford said at the Q&A that they wouldn't persue the debt because the money isn't there and there's no point in doing it even if they wanted (which he made clear they don't). That was followed up by saying if there was a takeover or investor the debt wouldn't be recouped so it would be officially written off.

 

MCT have made a proposal to invest on the basis the debt goes and have an outline agreement that this will be the case. However, to make it official it needs to go to a shareholders vote. Until there's money there and it's not just theoretical then I don't see how Crawford can fully commit so has to say what he is.

 

Presumably the benefit for GC of the 400k going to the football club is that it means we're more successful and their other shares become more attractive to investors. If I was involved in MCT, part of the agreement would be a future share value as well but it sounds like that's something they're doing with the valuation, etc that was mentioned.

[Malt]

Crawford was part of the board when Douglas Rae spent the money so they are equally to blame.

 

They have ran the club with no business plan or succession planning and they are responsible for the hearty loses and they should not be expecting g anyone to write them off.

[irnbru]

Crawford was part of the board when Douglas Rae spent the money so they are equally to blame.

 

They have ran the club with no business plan or succession planning and they are responsible for the hearty loses and they should not be expecting g anyone to write them off.

Golden Casket is not Crawford Rae but it was Dougie Rae. There's a huge difference here.

 

Dougie Rae signed off on absolutely everything both at the club and GC. That's a well known fact. Crawford may have been involved but he wouldn't have had very much influence until quite far down the line.

 

From everything Crawford has said the debt will get written off one way or another and they aren't looking to recoup it at all. My point is that even if Crawford wanted GC to prop up Morton its not his call in the way it was with his father.

[TRVMP]

Both Morton and GC were a one man show under him, now they aren't. Things change so why would the current shareholders pay for someone else's mistakes?

They seem to be willing to write off the debt, which it could be argued is morally right since they inherited (I assume) the shares, but they have no obligation whatsoever to Morton now and can't put their business and its staff at risk to subsidise another entity in the way he did.

We're not going to agree on this but this is exactly what I mean by playing both sides. A limited company being effectively a dictatorship is 100% not the same thing as that dictator being responsible for the debt. That's legally AND morally the case.

[rex manning]

Crawford said at the Q&A that they wouldn't persue the debt because the money isn't there and there's no point in doing it even if they wanted (which he made clear they don't). That was followed up by saying if there was a takeover or investor the debt wouldn't be recouped so it would be officially written off.

 

MCT have made a proposal to invest on the basis the debt goes and have an outline agreement that this will be the case. However, to make it official it needs to go to a shareholders vote. Until there's money there and it's not just theoretical then I don't see how Crawford can fully commit so has to say what he is.

 

Presumably the benefit for GC of the 400k going to the football club is that it means we're more successful and their other shares become more attractive to investors. If I was involved in MCT, part of the agreement would be a future share value as well but it sounds like that's something they're doing with the valuation, etc that was mentioned.

Well a lot of people seem to be pledging so maybe it will all be fine. Personally if GC came out and said unequivocally 'raise 400k and we'll officially write off the debt' then I think you'd find that cash would be raised a lot faster.

 

Although I'm still confused over what the hell Crawford was meaning at the Q&A. We wont pursue the debt; If someone wants to buy Morton then the debt wont be an issue; however if a fans group give us 400k we'll think about cancelling the debt. I was too lazy to attend though so it's my own fault.

[irnbru]

Well a lot of people seem to be pledging so maybe it will all be fine. Personally if GC came out and said unequivocally 'raise 400k and we'll officially write off the debt' then I think you'd find that cash would be raised a lot faster.

 

Although I'm still confused over what the hell Crawford was meaning at the Q&A. We wont pursue the debt; If someone wants to buy Morton then the debt wont be an issue; however if a fans group give us 400k we'll think about cancelling the debt. I was too lazy to attend though so it's my own fault.

I think it's as simple as he can't ask the GC board to officially sign off on something that might not happen or where circumstances might change.

[irnbru]

Well a lot of people seem to be pledging so maybe it will all be fine. Personally if GC came out and said unequivocally 'raise 400k and we'll officially write off the debt' then I think you'd find that cash would be raised a lot faster.

 

Although I'm still confused over what the hell Crawford was meaning at the Q&A. We wont pursue the debt; If someone wants to buy Morton then the debt wont be an issue; however if a fans group give us 400k we'll think about cancelling the debt. I was too lazy to attend though so it's my own fault.

I'm not talking about the debt. It's pretty clear they don't expect it back - it's essentially on paper only and will go one way or another. Perhaps the whole MCT investment clearing it thing is symbolic more than anything.

 

Crawford has sayed his dad's heart ruled his head with money at times and that the debt will go so without him actually saying it, he's possibly of the same opinion as you but isn't going to come out and say oh our business done x, y and z when that would have unnecessary reputational damage for them (and his recently deceased dad).

 

The business and current shareholders are clearly willing to write the debt off so its either because they are taking responsibility or knowing they won't get it back or, more likely, a bit of both.

 

What I am saying is that there's no way that the new shareholders there will approve putting any more money into Morton and nor should they. They need to protect their business and their staff especially in a time when a lot of businesses have uncertain futures. That doesn't necessarily mean not taking responsibility for the past.

[Malt]

Are the directors we have, Brian Clement or Alex Gray, shareholders?

[rex manning]

I am talking about the debt. The MTC put it in huge capital letters on their website that the only chance of Crawford asking GC to write off the 2.5m debt is if they raise the 400k.

[vikingTON]

The business and current shareholders are clearly willing to write the debt off so its either because they are taking responsibility or knowing they won't get it back or, more likely, a bit of both.

 

Erm no, that’s total bollocks. There’s no evidence that GC are clearly willing to write off any debt at all. Crawford does not control the company and all we’ve got from him is a pinky pledge to ‘recommend’ that course of action to shareholders ‘if’ - and only if - fans invest in the club anyway. The GC board and shareholders could quite easily say ‘no chance’ to that idea and nothing changes.

 

And if they were so willing to write off the debt then they’d have done that already to make the club roughly 17 million times more attractive to a buyer, seeing as they quite clearly want rid of it. They haven’t though.

 

It’s possible that MCT will be the body that changes both of those positions in the near future but nothing you have claimed accurately describes GC’s position right now.

[irnbru]

Erm no, that’s total bollocks. There’s no evidence that GC are clearly willing to write off any debt at all. Crawford does not control the company and all we’ve got from him is a pinky pledge to ‘recommend’ that course of action to shareholders ‘if’ - and only if - fans invest in the club anyway. The GC board and shareholders could quite easily say ‘no chance’ to that idea and nothing changes.

 

And if they were so willing to write off the debt then they’d have done that already to make the club roughly 17 million times more attractive to a buyer, seeing as they quite clearly want rid of it. They haven’t though.

 

It’s possible that MCT will be the body that changes both of those positions in the near future but nothing you have claimed accurately describes GC’s position right now.

So Crawford is lying and what he's said publicly several times has shocked the other shareholders into silence? He wouldn't repeatedly be saying that if the others didn't agree.

[TRVMP]

So Crawford is lying and what he's said publicly several times has shocked the other shareholders into silence? He wouldn't repeatedly be saying that if the others didn't agree.

 

He's said he's going to make recommendations. I highly doubt he's lying about that.

 

Once again you're playing both sides. On the one hand he can't make unilateral decisions about stemming the club's losses, because he doesn't control GC. On the other hand, his "recommendations" are now binding towards the rest of the board. You can't have it both ways. Either his recommendation is cast-iron or it isn't. If it's the former then why doesn't his power extend elsewhere; why can't he recommend further investment? If it's the latter, we really need a Golden Casket board statement to that effect.

 

edit: which, I gather from the latest update, MCT will secure before parting with cash.

[vikingTON]

So Crawford is lying and what he's said publicly several times has shocked the other shareholders into silence? He wouldn't repeatedly be saying that if the others didn't agree.

No, Crawford has said what he plans to recommend to the GC board if the fans invest in the club. But as he doesn’t actually control GC his word is not that of the company - indeed at no point in any recent communication has he confirmed that ‘the Golden Casket board has also agreed to write off the debt’ because, err, they haven’t. So no lies; just you completely misrepresenting what has actually happened yet again.

[Charles_Joe]

The other option is write off 15% (or incremental as shares are taken) of the debt and leave the other 85% on the books, rather than take the tax hit on the whole lot.

If you were intent on writing off a large debt as part of a sale of assets, you’d be better off trying to move the tax liability to the incoming party as part of the cost of sale. There’s no advantage to writing it off and receiving a bill for the tax with no deal to takeover on the table.

 

Presumably Cappielow prevents subsidiary insolvency being a feasible option.

[RealTonKid]

The other option is write off 15% (or incremental as shares are taken) of the debt and leave the other 85% on the books, rather than take the tax hit on the whole lot.

If you were intent on writing off a large debt as part of a sale of assets, you’d be better off trying to move the tax liability to the incoming party as part of the cost of sale. There’s no advantage to writing it off and receiving a bill for the tax with no deal to takeover on the table.

 

Presumably Cappielow prevents subsidiary insolvency being a feasible option.

 

If that's the case, then the debt will remain on the books for the foreseeable future.

[cmdc]

Who are these evil GC shareholders that tied Crawfords hands behind his back?

 

As far as I can see, everything was passed over to Mrs Rae, just as you would expect would happen.

Think the shareholding was split between Mrs Rae and their children.

[cmdc]

big jed says hes a liar an to check with compnys house lol

One of the more bizarre conspiracies.