Fan Ownership - Morton Club Together

[TONofmemories]

One family dispute is all that it might take before we see ourselves having to pay back the debt.

[EanieMeany]

I think the scheme could have done with a bit more hard-headed thinking (and some better packaging on the website) before going live today.  

 

This here. There's so much info on the website, but so few answers - I'd like to think that it's just an issue of presentation, but for so many words and so many grand statements, there's very little in the way of useful detail. 

 

We'll need to just wait and see, but I think it'd pay to employ a degree of cynicism to the whole thing until much, much more clarity is provided.

[TRVMP]

Remember: Morton becoming sustainable is a prerequisite for a sale. Taking on a stake in a loss-making enterprise would interest nobody.

 

... except for viewers in Greenock, who are cordially invited to throw yet more money at the club in exchange for "400k"'s worth of shares.

 

Or to put it a bit less snarkily: if the club is such a basket case and is in danger of imminent destruction, why should anyone invest in it? Because we love it and care about it and want it to continue? Yeah, good answer, except that presumably applies to the people owning it as well. But does it not apply? Are GC really eager to tear this millstone off from around their neck and throw it into the ocean? Then why are we supposed to be happy with their having a 75% share, rather than a 0% share? What, other than promises - which have gone so well before - is preventing them from just hauling out the begging bowl, or cutting and running, a year from now, ? Six months? Six days?

 

I won't question anyone else's decision but from my point of view, and with admittedly limited experience of seeing how this works from the inside, well over a decade's worth of engagement with and subsidization of the current BoD has resulted in a series of broken promises and the situation in which we now find ourselves, and throwing yet more money at the exact same people - with the added bonus that they now answer to a company that clearly hates us and (quite justifiably) sees us as a black hole of zero potential - is madness.

[vikingTON]

To own the club means buying Cappielow.

 

No it doesn't. Cappielow is an asset that the club itself owns. If you own a stake in the club then you own a part of the ground, just like anything else. As soon as you start trying to split the two, the game is up for everyone.  

 

I get the point that this isn’t about fans fully owning the club, which would definitely be ‘renting Ravenscraig’ (which I’m claiming as the new tagline), but the best route all round is to let GC sell the thing in one go. This feels like a vehicle to allow Rae to factor in the debt against the shares held value.

Why on earth should we entrust the future of the club to GC getting their entire stake sold to some mystery investor and it just so happening to be a good deal for the real stakeholders in the club - the fans - at the same time? In what condition will the club be in by the time that Iron Man or whoever gets tasked with pitching the club on the market investors actually manages to achieve a sale, and why should we have confidence that they'd make a sensible choice given they couldn't even pick a manager, put up a roof or renew a set of turnstiles without making a rip-roaring cunt of it? That's a fucking terrible idea. 

 

I agree that there needs to be scepticism until GC - not Crawford - put up guarantees and I'd very much like to see their valuation of the club being taken down a peg or two as well. But if executed properly then a scheme like this offers part of the solution to a situation that's been coming down the chute for over a decade now. 

[TRVMP]

I agree that there needs to be scepticism until GC - not Crawford - put up guarantees and I'd very much like to see their valuation of the club being taken down a peg or two as well. But if executed properly then a scheme like this offers part of the solution to a situation that's been coming down the chute for over a decade now. 

 

The one thing I'll say in favor of the constructive engagement approach that the Morton Together group is trying is that they are uniquely positioned to get that kind of guarantee, or at least to try. (I understand that some of the people involved tried this before with a prototype of the youth system, only to not get the guarantee - but they understood the importance of it and as such backed out of the project.) Right now words like "recommend" set the sirens blaring, though.

[macca937]

Pretty annoying that when you go to pledge it doesn’t work 5 times now and have given up

[The Bewilderedbeast]

If the other family shareholders tell Crawford he need to pull out then i presume that's what needs to happen. That could happen at any time.

 

Is it not a case of cutting their losses though, if they agreed to sell and write the debt off then they are clear.

If they insisted on recouping the debt then they’d require to hang on to the club and wait for a buyer to come along or put the club into liquidation.

I don’t think either of the last two would be attractive to them.

[Charles_Joe]

 

No it doesn't. Cappielow is an asset that the club itself owns. If you own a stake in the club then you own a part of the ground, just like anything else. As soon as you start trying to split the two, the game is up for everyone.

 

It’s only asset is Cappielow. Other than that it’s two sets of strips. Rae will be offering the two sets of strips.

[vikingTON]

One family dispute is all that it might take before we see ourselves having to pay back the debt.

That’s not going to happen, both because the money to do so will never be there and GC, while trying to offload the club, isn’t going to undo the main positive part of Dougie’s legacy by putting the club in nearly the same boat as before the Rae era. They’re not, for all their faults, some totally disinterested property speculators like the mob who own Dumbarton and now can’t get rid of it.

 

The debt still matters though. If GC just wanted rid of the club then writing it off immediately would be the best way to attract investors who would - rightly - be scared a mile away by the current accounts. It has instead stayed on the books throughout because it gave the Raes all the leverage it needs while operating the club and because - and I think this is key now - it can still be traded away in exchange for ongoing commercial privileges if any major investor(s) take over. It wouldn’t make sense for GC to write off that option for no return now which is why Crawford’s personal pledge on the matter isn’t good enough.

[cmdc]

That’s not going to happen, both because the money to do so will never be there and GC, while trying to offload the club, isn’t going to undo the main positive part of Dougie’s legacy by putting the club in nearly the same boat as before the Rae era. They’re not, for all their faults, some totally disinterested property speculators like the mob who own Dumbarton and now can’t get rid of it.

 

The debt still matters though. If GC just wanted rid of the club then writing it off immediately would be the best way to attract investors who would - rightly - be scared a mile away by the current accounts. It has instead stayed on the books throughout because it gave the Raes all the leverage it needs while operating the club and because - and I think this is key now - it can still be traded away in exchange for ongoing commercial privileges if any major investor(s) take over. It wouldn’t make sense for GC to write off that option for no return now which is why Crawford’s personal pledge on the matter isn’t good enough.

There’s also a more banal point that the debt is a £2.5m asset on GC’s books and with no real urgency to do so there’s been no point in wiping an asset of that value from their books in one go.

[TheGoon]

In terms of getting folk to pledge, the timing probably isn’t the best. Yes we’re on a bit of a high after last week’s result, but I think more would’ve gotten involved last summer, particularly after Dougie’s passing. (That might’ve come off as being too opportunistic mind)

[dunning1874]

I'm still in a state of mild shock at this news. Typing much else at this stage wouldn't be a great idea, so I'll restrict it to the following. Crawford has really outdone himself this time and I'm extremely disappointed to see a lot of well-meaning people going along with this.

 

 

Just to clarify exactly where you’re coming from here, is your position that this is essentially a cover act on Crawford’s part, it does nothing to significantly diluteGC’s shareholding but goes a significant way to getting money back without impacting any alternative sale to the Easdales or another interested party?

 

I’m not intending to put words into your mouth, just trying to gauge where people are coming from with the negatives.

[macca937]

It’s only asset is Cappielow. Other than that it’s two sets of strips. Rae will be offering the two sets of strips.

What about the Car park ?

[TRVMP]

Just to clarify exactly where you’re coming from here, is your position that this is essentially a cover act on Crawford’s part, it does nothing to significantly diluteGC’s shareholding but goes a significant way to getting money back without impacting any alternative sale to the Easdales or another interested party?

 

I’m not intending to put words into your mouth, just trying to gauge where people are coming from with the negatives.

 

It's less that it doesn't dilute the shareholding and more that it doesn't do so in any meaningful sense. GC retains the whip hand - as it should, it has most of the equity - GC's valuation of the club remains valid based on the value of the share issue. This is based on words like "recommendation", which, even if one doesn't assign any malicious intent to Crawford, should be regarded as meaningless in the absence of anything binding. Put it this way: I'm not saying he's being deliberately deceptive, but what he recommends to GC is not in his hands to effect. It's based on hot air, frankly, and even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's completely well-meaning, he shouldn't be making these kinds of promises in the aftermath of a failed three-year plan. It's simply not in his power to promise anything on the part of Golden Casket, and that's why this is, in my view, tremendously inappropriate.

[Jamie_M]

Frightening that its based on word of mouth.

Or assumption. The last assumption about the ownership situation after Dougie passed worked out well...

[Alan_Partridge_Ton]

First fundraising event - 'Stars of 79 v2'

We don’t mention that night around here!

[Alan_Partridge_Ton]

I’ve got a bucket full of coins and notes at home that I acquired... somewhere....

 

Would they accept that?

[TONofmemories]

Agreed.

[TopCat]

Our ownership situation has some similarities to Dumbarton now. We're owned by a commercial enterprise whose interests don't fully align with the clubs'. They have a duty to their shareholders to make money/minimise losses from Morton. The fact that GK used to be run wholly by a man who would never have taken a penny from the club doesn't matter any more.

 

My ideal new ownership scenario would be for a no single shareholder to have outright control. Fan ownership of 10-20% in the scenario wouldn't be a bad idea at all in this case. I'd be happy to sign up to a subscription payment for something like this.

 

However, handing over any actual cash before the debt situation is resolved/GK sell up isn't something very many people are going to go for. There's likely to be some negotiation/brinkmanship when it comes to any takeover which might harm the club in the short term. Fans stumping up 400k before that happens isn't going to make that problem go away.

[Guest Admin2]

All the relevant posts from the Big Squad thread have been moved over here.