Morton Club Together Updates

[vikingTON]

MCT aren't at fault for the shepherd's hut existing or whatever else is causing delays, but the risk of this happening should have been accounted for in their timetable for taking over. You'd think that the crack legal experts might have shared their insight that transferring ownership of the oldest ground in Scottish football could be held up by such issues. Instead the date given appears to have been based on sunny optimism that everything would fall into place perfectly, which is not the best way of managing expectations.

One reason why there has been so much speculation and scepticism towards MCT over the summer is that the timetable was unrealistic and they weren't transparent about the cause of the delay. 

[Kav]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

MCT aren't at fault for the shepherd's hut existing or whatever else is causing delays, but the risk of this happening should have been accounted for in their timetable for taking over. You'd think that the crack legal experts might have shared their insight that transferring ownership of the oldest ground in Scottish football could be held up by such issues. Instead the date given appears to have been based on sunny optimism that everything would fall into place perfectly, which is not the best way of managing expectations.

One reason why there has been so much speculation and scepticism towards MCT over the summer is that the timetable was unrealistic and they weren't transparent about the cause of the delay. 

Fair enough. Though if MCT had stated originally that they would hope to take full control over the club during the 2021/22 season there would be a - pretty legitimate - uproar. 

I think it's a fair assumption that Morton Football Club owns land that is spread across different title deeds that perhaps even Crawford/GC weren't even aware of and it's now come to light. 

[irnbru]

27 minutes ago, Kav said:

Fair enough. Though if MCT had stated originally that they would hope to take full control over the club during the 2021/22 season there would be a - pretty legitimate - uproar. 

I think it's a fair assumption that Morton Football Club owns land that is spread across different title deeds that perhaps even Crawford/GC weren't even aware of and it's now come to light. 

I think the problem is that they gave themselves an unrealistic deadline then vague updates so people became frustrated with no progress and no reason given for delays. 

The deal changed because of member feedback and the new deal with stadium owenship added complexity. If they were more open with that as soon as the issue with deeds was known (instead of making out it was just loose ends) then there would be less scepticism. No need to talk about huts, etc just be upfront that there were complications as a result of a change to the deal that they didn't expect. Instead it took months to update on why. 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

28 minutes ago, Kav said:

Fair enough. Though if MCT had stated originally that they would hope to take full control over the club during the 2021/22 season there would be a - pretty legitimate - uproar. 

Not necessarily. If they had simply said up front, 'look, we're new to this, we have no idea who long transfer of ownership of the football club and stadium takes, but we'll do all we can to ensure it's done as quickly as is logistically possible', and then gave regular updates on how it was going and the reasons for delays, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelid. This whole situation could and should have been easily avoided. 

[9 Strathblane Crescent]

You have to wonder why all of a sudden this has become a problem. This is not the first time the club has been sold land and all to a buyer. John Wilson bought the club land and all and Shug bought it from John Wilson land and all and Douglas Rae bought it from the administrator land and all and at no point in any of those transactions were there any question about what they were buying. MCT are buying the club land and all but all of a sudden we have a land dispute as to what is owned and what is not owned all because the land part of the deal is being put into a different company.

I know land disputes can become emotional but how come I get the impression from this latest update that there's relief that they have found something that can be used as an excuse to delay the deal.

[irnbru]

1 minute ago, 9 Strathblane Crescent said:

You have to wonder why all of a sudden this has become a problem. This is not the first time the club has been sold land and all to a buyer. John Wilson bought the club land and all and Shug bought it from John Wilson land and all and Douglas Rae bought it from the administrator land and all and at no point in any of those transactions were there any question about what they were buying. MCT are buying the club land and all but all of a sudden we have a land dispute as to what is owned and what is not owned all because the land part of the deal is being put into a different company.

I know land disputes can become emotional but how come I get the impression from this latest update that there's relief that they have found something that can be used as an excuse to delay the deal.

Did they not all buy the holding company who had the land as an asset? This time the land is moving to a different company from the club. 

[Kav]

51 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Not necessarily. If they had simply said up front, 'look, we're new to this, we have no idea who long transfer of ownership of the football club and stadium takes, but we'll do all we can to ensure it's done as quickly as is logistically possible', and then gave regular updates on how it was going and the reasons for delays, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelid. This whole situation could and should have been easily avoided. 

Does that really need spelling out? Of course they're new to it! They provided a date where they had hoped, or expected, a deal to be concluded. An update was provided by MCT in May to say there were issues with HMRC, and another in June to say that the same issues were holding up the process. Of course they probably should have laid out the finer details in the interests of transparency, but hey ho - lesson learned. 

[DreamOakTree]

As far as I’m aware all the MCT Board are new to managing a fan group takeover. I.e. they haven’t been running fan takeovers at various clubs for years, in fact not at all. So even though they have different levels of business experience, they had zero experience in this particular type of venture. They were also a group of individuals coming together as a new team to carry out a venture they had no experience of, during a pandemic which added all sorts of further restrictions to their efforts to put everything in place.
 

Dealing with Crawford Rae also looked difficult as the goalposts seemed to move several times to prevent a smooth transition. I’m unsure whether they knew every barrier that was going to emerge to delay the takeover, to the extent they could’ve told us all upfront many weeks ago as has been suggested, as the barriers weren’t all rolled up conveniently as one known package, they emerged one after the other.

For these reasons I am not that bothered they didn’t inform me weeks ago of the impending delays, known and unknown. I’m more bothered that they get it right, in the knowledge that when they do, these delays will then be a thing of the past and they will then know what they are dealing with from that moment on. In fact I would hope the difficult learning curve they’ve just gone through will stand them in good stead for running a smooth operation going forward. 

[vikingTON]

7 minutes ago, DreamOakTree said:

Dealing with Crawford Rae also looked difficult as the goalposts seemed to move several times to prevent a smooth transition. I’m unsure whether they knew every barrier that was going to emerge to delay the takeover, to the extent they could’ve told us all upfront many weeks ago as has been suggested, as the barriers weren’t all rolled up conveniently as one known package, they emerged one after the other.

You don't need to know exactly what obstacle is going to come up when undertaking a project, to ask the question 'well how likely is it that something will delay this process?' and adjust the timetable accordingly. If they had stated 1 August (or even later) as a target for a complete takeover of the club and land and then it was achieved ahead of schedule, nobody would have complained about that. They also wouldn't have needed a laundry list of excuses a summer which have not stacked up with each other and fuelled speculation. This is why going with any 'optimistic' target is foolish when delivering any complicated project.

Hopefully MCT will learn from that experience because the infrastructure that the club needs to drag itself into the 21st century will need a more hard-headed analysis and expectation management to deliver in the near future.

[DreamOakTree]

14 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

You don't need to know exactly what obstacle is going to come up when undertaking a project, to ask the question 'well how likely is it that something will delay this process?' and adjust the timetable accordingly. If they had stated 1 August (or even later) as a target for a complete takeover of the club and land and then it was achieved ahead of schedule, nobody would have complained about that. They also wouldn't have needed a laundry list of excuses a summer which have not stacked up with each other and fuelled speculation. This is why going with any 'optimistic' target is foolish when delivering any complicated project.

Hopefully MCT will learn from that experience because the infrastructure that the club needs to drag itself into the 21st century will need a more hard-headed analysis and expectation management to deliver in the near future.

MCT may have thought that a delay to the takeover start date was a problem for them though, rather than the fans, unless of course it disrupted the building of our new playing squad. 
I respect the wish of any fan who feels they need to know blow by blow details of the ups and downs of the business side of the takeover delay. 
I’m more concerned in how it affects matters on the pitch, just as long as the takeover eventually takes place in the intended format, because once it’s in place then that’s us up and running.

[9 Strathblane Crescent]

21 hours ago, irnbru said:

Did they not all buy the holding company who had the land as an asset? This time the land is moving to a different company from the club. 

When Douglas Rae took ownership the club and assets were transfered from Miltonview (Hugh Scott) into a holding company Regionsign, Jim McColl and Prof Pickett being the only directors, before being transfered to Golden Casket Group and Douglas Rae. At no time in any of these transactions did anyone raise a concern about what was owned by the club in the way of land mass. In fact the club under Douglas Rae did have a dispute with Arnold Clark who were using the entrance to the Wee Dublin End to store cars. There must have been some sort of land registery search at that point to see who owned what. Then again Ms Donaldson was in charge so maybe not. Morton have Arnold Clark on one side and Messrs Easdales land on the other. The railway and road have always been there so no change. Surely coming to an agreement as to who owns what could be settled very quickly and new boundaries drawn for everyones benefit. Not unless the disputed area is where Mark Farrell keeps his gear which used to be a tenement building. But I would have assumed this would have been purchased by Morton many moons ago.  

[capitanus]

In the past few years there has been a new way of Land Registration in Scotland, where property title deeds are clearly mapped out which going forward would aim to prevent any ambiguity in old sasine titles.  HamCam is the likely expert on these matters, over to him.

[Alibi]

On 8/4/2021 at 5:50 PM, capitanus said:

Greenock in the late 1800s and early 1900s was a hive of industry  - shipyards, docks, heavy engineering works, railways etc.  I cant imagine there would be too many shepherds poncing about in a shed in that area back then.

Did they not used to graze sheep on the pitch back around the time we won the Scottish Cup?  I'm sure these was some story about that in one of the books about the history of Morton.  I assume they used the sheep to distract Miller and McLeish when we played Aberdeen...

[Jamie_M]

8 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Did they not used to graze sheep on the pitch back around the time we won the Scottish Cup?  I'm sure these was some story about that in one of the books about the history of Morton.  I assume they used the sheep to distract Miller and McLeish when we played Aberdeen...

The book says we had a sheep ad a mascot but it drowned in the team bath.

 

[SpoonTon]

On 8/9/2021 at 12:34 AM, capitanus said:

In the past few years there has been a new way of Land Registration in Scotland, where property title deeds are clearly mapped out which going forward would aim to prevent any ambiguity in old sasine titles.  HamCam is the likely expert on these matters, over to him.

Yeah, I'm not an expert on this but as far as I'm aware you're on the right point here. There have been major changes to Land Registration in Scotland since the last time Cappielow changed hands. I think, in basic terms, now when land is transferred it has to be registered with the land registry in Scotland, so it's no longer just the legal process of passing over old title deeds - it has to go to the land registry and, as you say, be clearly mapped out anew so there is no (or as little as possible) ambiguity.

 

[port-ton]

33 minutes ago, Jamie_M said:

The book says we had a sheep ad a mascot but it drowned in the team bath.

 

The most fitting mascot in football history. 

[Scouse Mouse]

That sheep was called Toby.  

HTH.

[Scouse Mouse]

6 hours ago, SpoonTon said:

Yeah, I'm not an expert on this but as far as I'm aware you're on the right point here. There have been major changes to Land Registration in Scotland since the last time Cappielow changed hands. I think, in basic terms, now when land is transferred it has to be registered with the land registry in Scotland, so it's no longer just the legal process of passing over old title deeds - it has to go to the land registry and, as you say, be clearly mapped out anew so there is no (or as little as possible) ambiguity.

 

It never was just a case of passing over old deeds, any transaction involving land would have been recorded in the Sasine Register which is maintained by Registrar's of Scotland.

[SpoonTon]

1 hour ago, Scouse Mouse said:

It never was just a case of passing over old deeds, any transaction involving land would have been recorded in the Sasine Register which is maintained by Registrar's of Scotland.

Yeah, I realise I was being a bit simplistic and imprecise. I did add in the word legal to try to cover myself on that one, but I do admit that I'm not particularly accurate with what I wrote. 

I meant that while the old process of registration was basically an updating of the old register (registering the passing of the deeds and other relevant information), it now has to be translated into the new land register (involving a standardised map rather than relying on descriptions, drawings, maps, etc. which belonged to the deeds/registrations).

Again, I apologise for my shoddy terminology and being too simplistic but I think my point is there. And, honestly, feel free to correct me wherever I'm wrong. As I said, I'm not an expert and have only had limited experiences of such registrations. 

 

[TONofmemories]

Dear members,

We've got some more information on the progress of the takeover for you in this week's update.

Firstly, the terms of agreement for the use of the car park have been finalised and are ready for signature. They will not, however, be signed until all the other documents are ready.

The title issue is near completion. As we indicated, there is one small area of land that has been occupied by the club for many years, but which it does not own. The club has been in negotiation with the legal owner of that land, and it looks likely that we will purchase that land for a nominal sum. This is unlikely to delay the takeover, as it is a separate land transaction.

We have been asked questions about why these issues were not resolved when the Rae family purchased the club 20 years ago. At that time, the club was purchased, but not the land. The land has always been owned by Morton. Had MCT purchased the club alone, these issues would not have arisen. This is why we believed that we could complete the transfer by 1st June. The change to the plan, to keep the stadium within the club’s ownership with no standard security over it, has necessitated a change in the timetable. 

In order to protect the stadium from any future predators or creditors, the stadium will be owned by a separate property company (owned and controlled by MCT). That triggers the “first registration” to transfer the old Sasines titles into a new and neater Land Register title. This has significantly increased the legal work required to complete the deal, which has led to the delay. Be assured that these additional steps are being taken only to protect the stadium and the club in the long term.

The next few days will see much activity on the ground. The car park and stadium will have to be photographed to show their condition at the date of transfer. This small step alone will take a full day to complete. Once the photos are agreed between parties, the last stages of fine tuning can be completed.

We cannot put a timescale on this, but we can confirm that these issues are not preventing the preparation for the season. 

We will issue another update when there is some further movement.

Club News

We hope you enjoyed our first three points of the league season if you were at New Douglas Park last Saturday or watching at home. The roar from the away section when Gozie Ugwu's goal went in was a sound that's been sorely missed.

You'll have seen the club update this week regarding the changes in the protocols when attending Cappielow going forward. If you missed that you can read it here, but it's a hugely welcome step to getting your match routine back to a level of normality. An attendance of up to 5,000 is now allowed for our matches going forward and should we require an increase on that we can liaise with Inverclyde Council to request it. They'll also be a further update in due course on the return of the hospitality offering.

Chris Ross, the new General Manager, started this week and you can find an interview with him here about his initial thoughts and why he wanted to join the club.

No match action for our men's team this weekend but our women's team will be looking to bounce back from that disappointing derby defeat at Cappielow last weekend. Spectators are allowed in their away match against Renfrew if you can make it along to New Western Park.

Thanks,

MCT Comms Team