Morton Club Together Updates

[Cet Homme Charmant]

10 minutes ago, LargsTON said:

36%?  Our gas and electric has nearly doubled and will treble at the turn of the year.  I'd imagine most folk are the same.   Ive said it a million times but fan ownership simply can't work at our level and we're now seeing alarm bells ringing.  We're about to sink without trace unless someone or a group take the club on.  

Yeah, it's wrong, I corrected it in a subsequent post, 36% was from 2020 to 2021.

[port-ton]

Even if we get a loan to see us through to next season for example, what is the clubs plans to get us out of this mess beyond that other than engaging with the wider Inverclyde community? A club with debts and not enough income to service those debts plus the daily costs of running the club only ends in one way. 

With no plan and a loan rather than investment you're asking MCT members to pay monthly in to what is essentially a black hole to service debt until the inevitable happens, whether that's a takeover or worse. 

 

[Jamie_M]

1 hour ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

If commercial energy prices really have increased by 325% in the last year in the UK, and I take your word for it that they have, then I confidently predict that the whole economy will soon collapse as very few business could absorb that level of increase. 

Domestically, at the start of 2021, average prices were between £850 (if on a deal) and £1050. April's increase (and the fact there are no deals) mean you get no change back from £2k.

October's increase will make that figure £2800 to £3k.

[EanieMeany]

1 hour ago, GiGi said:

Cheap credit as opposed to genuine investment, by the sounds of it. 

A couple of starts at centre-forward. 

[TRVMP]

24 minutes ago, port-ton said:

Even if we get a loan to see us through to next season for example, what is the clubs plans to get us out of this mess beyond that other than engaging with the wider Inverclyde community? A club with debts and not enough income to service those debts plus the daily costs of running the club only ends in one way. 

With no plan and a loan rather than investment you're asking MCT members to pay monthly in to what is essentially a black hole to service debt until the inevitable happens, whether that's a takeover or worse. 

 

We're not in debt, though.

[dunning1874]

Saying they're looking at a proposal for a loan is a massive alarm bell and it's hard to see what loan terms could possibly be acceptable. We didn't get a debt free club just to plunge back into debt by taking out a loan to cover running costs 

It's worth noting though that anyone who is immediately reacting to this by saying "right, sell up, we need a white knight to takeover and fund us" is effectively asking for the same approach of piling debt on to cover running costs, just with the debt being back to a private owner again in the same shitshow we had under the Raes. That is the death sentence you are asking for when you ask for a private owner to come back to plug losses as fan ownership can only fail.

None of which is to say MCT are doing everything right and can't improve. The problem is that, as before, we don't know who within the boards of GMFC and MCT is doing what and who is performing their roles well. Certainly this leads to further questions about why the club has sanctioned so many two year deals to players and why there has been no consideration of going hybrid, and the rank and file MCT membership (as well as the wider support) don't have the information to hand to know whether more could be done to generate income.

I will say as well that as much as this is a cause for concern overall and we'd have wanted the income from that investment, if it was a case of investment with anonymity or no investment then it falling through is absolutely the best option.

[Greacen2000]

I am fine with the investment talks breaking down on the basis of the interested parties wanting to remain anonymous, so have no criticism of how MCT & the board have handled that situation.  As far as I am concerned if someone wants to remain faceless, then I do not want them to get involved in the club.

Losing the sponsorship deal is a sore one, especially as we were told at the EGM that maintaining last seasons playing budget was predicated on receiving this sponsorship money.  So until some other source of funds come along, I think it is safe to assume that we won't be seeing any more signings, and that Imrie is operating with a reduced budget from last season.  It was suggested at the EGM that this was a done deal, but the wording of the statement tells us that this was not the case as the offer ended up being lower than expected.  Lesson learned here is not to announce things until they are cut and dried.

In terms of a way forward, I do not accept that fan ownership isn't workable/sustainable at our level.  The economic reality we face is exactly the same as other clubs of our size, the only difference being that some of our competitors still have financial backing, or at least a facility to borrow money.  In the short term this puts them at an advantage over us, but in the longer term is not sustainable.  We have been there for the past 20 odd years and look where it got us.

That said, you do need to show a bit of ambition in order to progress.  The difference in prize money between 5th and 8th is around 50 grand (maybe even more as the numbers I found were a couple of years old), which would comfortably pay a years wages for a decent player at our level.  Likewise if we had managed to get out of what was a pretty weak League cup group, we would have had an extra 50K prize money in the bank from that.  So arguably by not signing the couple of extra players which are clearly required, we are saying goodbye to the possibility of an extra 100k+ prize money.  Not to mention the fact that a club who are mid table competing for playoffs and having cup runs are likely to attract higher crowds & better sponsorship offers than a club involved in a relegation dogfight.

I am not sure what to make of the "interest free loan" offer which is mentioned.  Being totally speculative, I would be very interested to know if the group of businessmen who have made this proposal might be the same ones who walked away from the investment negotiations.  If this is the case then I would be very concerned as to the terms of the loan potentially being a way of buying the shares by the backdoor (eg - "any lending not settled by X date will be converted into share capital" or something like that).  

In order to get into a position where we can maximise our potential revenue, we need to spend a bit of money.  But without a lending facility, improved sponsorship, or new investment, we have no way of increasing the budget.  Bit of a catch 22 situation, but I fear that crowd numbers and also MCT contributions may suffer if we do not find a way forward and end up involved in a relegation scrap.

[vikingTON]

The club like any other business would clearly benefit from having a credit line for cashflow purposes, but the idea of either an individual directly providing that or a longer-term loan for any purpose raises a red flag. That decision should not be taken without the clear discussion and approval of the MCT membership because that is a huge step towards losing effective ownership even if shares are not being exchanged.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

36 minutes ago, TRVMP said:

We're not in debt, though.

But they did mention an interest-free loan option somewhere in the statement

[TRVMP]

1 minute ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

But they did mention an interest-free loan option somewhere in the statement

Correct, it is for the time being an option.

Right now we're not in any danger, though. At this exact second in time.

[so72]

If Easdale is interested then I'd explore that road before taking loans and risk our future. Regardless, if he/they took over they might provide credit rather than investment. 

 

 

I'm not surprised MCT haven't managed to raise enough subscriptions. Between ignoring the Lithgow concerns, appointing Gus and then the financial situation for individuals (obviously out their control) it hasn't been a fertile breeding ground for cash.

 

 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

1 minute ago, TRVMP said:

Correct, it is for the time being an option.

Right now we're not in any danger, though. At this exact second in time.

Indeed, but the very fact that taking out a loan to cover day-to-day running costs is mentioned as an option on the table should in itself be setting off huge alarm bells

[TRVMP]

Just now, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Indeed, but the very fact that taking out a loan to cover day-to-day running costs is mentioned as an option on the table should in itself be setting off huge alarm bells

We're splitting hairs here a bit but the statement doesn't explicitly say that the loan is for the running costs.

I don't think anyone is not alarmed. This is clearly a serious situation and one that puts our full-time status and Championship status in jeopardy. But that is not the same as saying "we need loans or we cannot physically keep the lights on." The option is more between paying the fixed (yet rising) costs of keeping the lights on and between having a competitive squad.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

27 minutes ago, Greacen2000 said:

I am fine with the investment talks breaking down on the basis of the interested parties wanting to remain anonymous 

I think that would depend very much on their reason(s) for wanting to remain anonymous. There are plenty of possible completely non-sinister reasons for someone wanting to remain anonymous. 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

1 minute ago, TRVMP said:

We're splitting hairs here a bit but the statement doesn't explicitly say that the loan is for the running costs.

I don't think anyone is not alarmed. This is clearly a serious situation and one that puts our full-time status and Championship status in jeopardy. But that is not the same as saying "we need loans or we cannot physically keep the lights on." The option is more between paying the fixed (yet rising) costs of keeping the lights on and between having a competitive squad.

Indeed it's open to interpretation as to the circumstances by which they'd take up the interest-free loan option. As MCT have previously stated (I pretty sure, but may be wrong) that they would never take the club into debt, I've assumed that they would only take this option as a last resort to maintain an operational cash-flow. But yeah, I could have misinterpreted it. 

[port-ton]

35 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

 

It's worth noting though that anyone who is immediately reacting to this by saying "right, sell up, we need a white knight to takeover and fund us" is effectively asking for the same approach of piling debt on to cover running costs, just with the debt being back to a private owner again in the same shitshow we had under the Raes. That is the death sentence you are asking for when you ask for a private owner to come back to plug losses as fan ownership can only fail.

 

Alternatively a private owner could have the business structure in place to improve income generating departments of the club and be able to run the club sustainably just as well as fan ownership theoretically could. 

At the moment we have a board of volunteer board members with full time jobs, no CEO and a commercial manager who from the outside looks to be trying his absolute best to improve commercial income in to the club but he can't work miracles. What's the path to improving the situation without funds there to improve it? 

It depends if you think there's more risk in not having a club through fan ownership failing or a private owner running up debts again. It pains me to say it but the more I see and hear the more I lean towards fan ownership (in this current model at least) being more of an immediate risk to the clubs future. As grim as that statement was, that was them painting the situation in the best light possible for fans/MCT members. 

[HamCam]

Disappointing but not surprising. Once again MCT over-promised and have under-delivered (the sponsorship deal). While the fans want to hear good news marching them up to the top of the hill to only march them down again does not suggest prudent governance. That said I do appreciate the update and the efforts of all who have volunteered at MCT. On Saturday we had Graham standing in the pissing rain flogging the Imrie t-shirts - I am sure he would rather be just supporting the team like the rest of us. I do though question the idea of MCT directors, who are standing down, retaining a position on the GMFC Board - surely this only dilutes the input of the membership? 

At least we now know the reality of where we are on the footballing side. No more signings unless the donor club picks up 100% of the bill. No point fans, including me, ranting on about the gaps in the squad, we have to get fully behind those in the jersey. Yet again it looks as if it will be a season where we are fighting to survive rather than looking up. Normal service is resumed.

[Greacen2000]

11 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

I think that would depend very much on their reason(s) for wanting to remain anonymous. There are plenty of possible completely non-sinister reasons for someone wanting to remain anonymous. 

It was agreed at the EGM that once a deal in principle had been reached, the full details of it (including the parties involved) would be disclosed to the MCT membership before a final vote to approve/veto it.

Once the hypothetical deal had went through, the said individuals would have received seat(s) on the board in exchange for their investment.  At that point remaining anonymous would no longer really be an option.

So we can conclude that this desire to remain anonymous is in fact a desire not to be named prior to the MCT membership voting on the deal.  That being the case, anyone who isn't comfortable being named can do one as far as I am concerned

[vikingTON]

45 minutes ago, port-ton said:

Alternatively a private owner could have the business structure in place to improve income generating departments of the club and be able to run the club sustainably just as well as fan ownership theoretically could. 

Why would a private owner spend their time and resources building an entirely new (and assumed to be superior: Golden Casket's certainly wasn't) business structure, at a club with no assets in the middle of a looming economic recession? 

It's fair enough to raise the potential lack of current expertise. It's probably true that we would do better with more professionals (such as having a CEO with a real contract) and fewer amateurs. Although the GMFC board is not made up entirely of MCT officials and many of those officials do have reasonable business backgrounds anyway - we have (so far) done not too bad on this front. In the long term I think that the best model is a 50+1 fan ownership arrangement that gives private businesses and their directors a tangible stake (up to 49% combined) in the club's success. But that's not where we are right now.

The idea that the club could or should instead be handed over wholesale to a Rae mk. II figure is a complete non-starter given the wider economic circumstances. If investors aren't willing to go for a stake on current terms then they're not going to raise their head above the parapet to take responsibility for the club as a whole unless they can get the ground asset as a prize. And if anyone thinks that should be on the table in negotiations then we're in much more trouble than part-time football could ever produce.

Edited July 27 by vikingTON

[EanieMeany]

2 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

Saying they're looking at a proposal for a loan is a massive alarm bell and it's hard to see what loan terms could possibly be acceptable. We didn't get a debt free club just to plunge back into debt by taking out a loan to cover running costs 

It's worth noting though that anyone who is immediately reacting to this by saying "right, sell up, we need a white knight to takeover and fund us" is effectively asking for the same approach of piling debt on to cover running costs, just with the debt being back to a private owner again in the same shitshow we had under the Raes. That is the death sentence you are asking for when you ask for a private owner to come back to plug losses as fan ownership can only fail.

 

I think having no confidence in fan ownership at this stage is pretty reasonable, to be honest. Whilst I think it's too soon to go straight to the "sell up immediately" option,  whether we eventually reach that stage or not is entirely dependant on whether MCT are willing to accept that they've not made a particularly great job of it and be open to totally reforming itself. I posted along these lines recently, below:

On 7/19/2022 at 8:45 PM, EanieMeany said:

I think it's maybe a prudent time for an open conversation/consultation to take place about what the future holds with everything and anything on the table to be discussed. 

It could well be MCT revealing some development or other which is the catalyst for the club to push on as is, it could be the planning and development of some innovative hybrid structure,it could be a realisation that full-time football simply isn't viable and whether or not that can be resolved by anything, or it could just be a damp squib. Who knows? There's nothing to be scared of by listening to the people who care most about the club, and fans en-masse can be a helluva lot more imaginative than a bunch of lawyers in suits cozied up in a boardroom.

...

The early days of fan ownership should be a time for bold new ideas and discussions and exploring ways to move the club forward: fan ownership might not mean fan-run but it certainly should mean fan-propelled (pun entirely unintended) and utilising the knowledge, skills and passion of the support.

If they're not willing to fully engage and to potentially embark on a rapid and radical change of tack that goes beyond the current lack of any real accountability or ingenuity, and they've nothing better to say than asking for loans, then there absolutely has to be a willingness to look for new ownership. 

As a general point, I think it's really quite absurd, frankly, for people to be looking down their noses at "private" ownership. Everybody else seems to be doing not awfully and every single other full-time club has managed to perform far better than us over the past few decades or at least achieve one major thing (cup finals, European football, top-flight football etc), so why exactly Morton should think its above the same ownership models as them when we've achieved precisely fuck all isn't really clear.

I mean, let's be honest: at no point under the Raes outwith the post-administration period, even in the last few years under Crawford, did we find ourselves with a squad as shambolic as the one we do now. There were certainly some rotten ones, but that was down to managers making an arse of it rather than trying to pass off development/reserve players as a huge chunk of the squad.

That's not to say the Rae era was a halcyon one, but let's not try to pretend it ever reached the stage we're at now. Just because that was bad too doesn't mitigate what we have now.

 

1 hour ago, Greacen2000 said:

It was agreed at the EGM that once a deal in principle had been reached, the full details of it (including the parties involved) would be disclosed to the MCT membership before a final vote to approve/veto it.

Once the hypothetical deal had went through, the said individuals would have received seat(s) on the board in exchange for their investment.  At that point remaining anonymous would no longer really be an option.

So we can conclude that this desire to remain anonymous is in fact a desire not to be named prior to the MCT membership voting on the deal.  That being the case, anyone who isn't comfortable being named can do one as far as I am concerned

 

I'm not too sure about this, tbh. I don't think it's all that unreasonable to be going to a football club to invest a lot of money for not much in return and no real power at the club and not be too keen on having a bunch of pearl-clutchers on a message-board debating your character. If it was to actually buy the club then yeah, maybe, but to have a bunch of strangers, the majority of whom wouldn't even look at you if you were in the same room never mind pass comment, thinking their entitled to publicly debate your character so you can whack money into a football team doesn't seem an overtly sinister thing to want to avoid. 

ETA: That's not to say I'd be overly keen on the whole process taking place anonymously, but I don't think somebody withdrawing because of it is proof that there's anything sinister going on. There's simply loads of places where you can put your money, probably a good few where you'll get far more out of it, without getting your reputation taken to bits in public. I'm not sure there's any real way to get round that, but nonetheless I don't think it's unreasonable for people to not want to put themselves in that situation. It doesn't necessarily mean they were hatching some nefarious plan.

Edited July 27 by EanieMeany