Fan Ownership - Morton Club Together

[EanieMeany]

One of the more bizarre conspiracies.

I suspect Big Jed is the name he gives to the man who lives inside his head.

[Malt]

If GC didn’t want the debt cleared or money back from that, why not write it off each season?

 

The club has been ran with no business plan, no future planning, zero succession planning and most of us could see this coming with the money that was wasted on transfers, with no return, the love street stand (no return), court fees (no return) and most recently the turnstiles (again, no return).

 

There was always going to come a crunch yet for 10 or so years we ran on the pipe dream of 4000 a week and being a friend.

 

The Rae family legacy as owners of Greenock morton can only be summed up as shocking given how atrociously they have ran the club and now The longevity of the club is in question due to their ineptness.

[cmdc]

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

I don’t think the debt sitting on the books is all that significant a problem because we aren’t financing eg it in the way that we would a bank debt. In that sense it won’t scare off potential investors from asking the question because it can be negotiated down and possibly negotiated away. Addressing the running costs is more important in terms of attracting investment. As Marko says, until there is genuine interest there is no major advantage either to GC or to Morton in writing the debt off now.

[Malt]

I don’t think the debt sitting on the books is all that significant a problem because we aren’t financing eg it in the way that we would a bank debt. In that sense it won’t scare off potential investors from asking the question because it can be negotiated down and possibly negotiated away. Addressing the running costs is more important in terms of attracting investment. As Marko says, until there is genuine interest there is no major advantage either to GC or to Morton in writing the debt off now.

I would disagree as the books are terrible and there is nothing concrete to suggest this debt will be written off.

 

Like I said, it should have been cleared each year of the 18 mismanaged years under the Rae family or clear it now and say the balance sheet is 0 and now we look to stay that way or in profit.

 

However, the debt is still there to see.

[cmdc]

You think or you know?

I think.

[cmdc]

haha have you checked

No.

[cmdc]

So youre just guessing?

Partly guessing as spouse and children would have an automatic claim to a share in the moveable estate which would normally include shareholdings; partly what has been said publicly about the ‘wider family’ now having a say; partly what I’d been told privately. Could be wrong, have no particular interest to look more deeply into it.

[cmdc]

big jed says no change at compnys house lol

Wouldn’t necessarily expect any changes to be filed as yet so big Jed shouldn’t read anything into that.

[Alan_Partridge_Ton]

big jed says no change at compnys house lol

Who’s big Jed?

[vikingTON]

I don’t think the debt sitting on the books is all that significant a problem because we aren’t financing eg it in the way that we would a bank debt. In that sense it won’t scare off potential investors from asking the question because it can be negotiated down and possibly negotiated away. 

 

A totally unnecessary question to ask and negotiation to have. If GC just wanted rid of the club as a millstone around its neck, then the debt would have been cleared i) months ago or better still ii) when Douglas Rae was still in charge of both companies. The fact that the debt has remained on the books the whole time clearly shows that GC wants something out of this. That any investor has to deal with GC's precious interests first before even addressing the issues at the club is both an obstacle to well-meaning investment and to the detriment of GMFC. 

[cmdc]

A totally unnecessary question to ask and negotiation to have. If GC just wanted rid of the club as a millstone around its neck, then the debt would have been cleared i) months ago or better still ii) when Douglas Rae was still in charge of both companies. The fact that the debt has remained on the books the whole time clearly shows that GC wants something out of this. That any investor has to deal with GC's precious interests first before even addressing the issues at the club is both an obstacle to well-meaning investment and to the detriment of GMFC.

Well, maybe, yeah. Or it could be sitting there because GC have been advised to retain it for their own accounting purposes, which is what Crawford seemed to suggest. But here we are. For whatever reason the debt is there and so the question does need to be asked. But that in itself won’t deter investors. The answer might, but then again their interest in letting go of the club and the associated risks might - I guess probably will - weigh more heavily than their interest in recouping the debt.

 

In general terms I would have thought most transfers in ownership mean dealing with the interests of the selling party - whether its McCann recouping a successful investment at Celtic or the Davies family’s interest in failed investments into Bolton.

[Alibi]

The debt is surely a source of tax relief? Given that, does it not mean that the effective cost of the debt to a purchaser can be reduced?

[Malt]

Well, maybe, yeah. Or it could be sitting there because GC have been advised to retain it for their own accounting purposes, which is what Crawford seemed to suggest. But here we are. For whatever reason the debt is there and so the question does need to be asked. But that in itself won’t deter investors. The answer might, but then again their interest in letting go of the club and the associated risks might - I guess probably will - weigh more heavily than their interest in recouping the debt.

 

In general terms I would have thought most transfers in ownership mean dealing with the interests of the selling party - whether its McCann recouping a successful investment at Celtic or the Davies family’s interest in failed investments into Bolton.

Why would it not deter investors?

 

It shows we we are a loss making club who are nearly 3million in the whole. Would that not be off-putting? Nearly 20years of making a loss?

[cmdc]

Why would it not deter investors?

 

It shows we we are a loss making club who are nearly 3million in the whole. Would that not be off-putting? Nearly 20years of making a loss?

That’s what I’ve said. The ongoing costs are more off putting than value of the debt itself. The latter can be negotiated down or away, the former needs some hard work and difficult decisions.

[vikingTON]

Well, maybe, yeah. Or it could be sitting there because GC have been advised to retain it for their own accounting purposes, which is what Crawford seemed to suggest. But here we are. For whatever reason the debt is there and so the question does need to be asked. But that in itself won’t deter investors. The answer might, but then again their interest in letting go of the club and the associated risks might - I guess probably will - weigh more heavily than their interest in recouping the debt.

 

In general terms I would have thought most transfers in ownership mean dealing with the interests of the selling party - whether its McCann recouping a successful investment at Celtic or the Davies family’s interest in failed investments into Bolton.

Interests that clearly include getting something in return for the debt that GC’s previous owner saddled the club with. Which makes it all the more important to set out the facts about what Crawford Rae has actually said and what their board is committed to, rather than waving away the debt right now as either a minor or resolved issue.

[cmdc]

Interests that clearly include getting something in return for the debt that GC’s previous owner saddled the club with. Which makes it all the more important to set out the facts about what Crawford Rae has actually said and what their board is committed to, rather than waving away the debt right now as either a minor or resolved issue.

Yep

[SuperTonic]

Who is on the Morton Board currently?..

[Alan_Partridge_Ton]

goes to games with us hes a ca or sutchlike

Alright I’ll rephrase the question...

 

Can I.... actually no I’ll just repeat the question...

 

Who’s big Jed?

[EanieMeany]

Just to be clear by the way, I wouldn't seri​ously expect Graham to walk into the board room and say "punt him or else". I would, though, expect there to be a clear purpose from day one, and a vision for what the group wants for (and from) the club.

 

At this point that's not likely to include ultimatums about employees, but there should be some kind of clarity as to what the aim is beyond "investing in the football". £400k is a lot to invest in a struggling business with an owner who wants out, you're entitled to push your an agenda.

Under no circumstances should this board be given an unconditional investment.

[vikingTON]

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness.