Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com
advertisement_alt

Morton Club Together Updates


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Kafka's head would be spinning at this. You're arguing that these proposals are designed to 'shield the stadium from creditors' when they consist of either the stadium being used as security for

Well this statement is not ageing particularly well, given that in spite of receiving a £500k taxpayer's grant for literally fuck-all, the current custodians of GMFC have in the following six weeks:

Before getting into the lengthy wrongs and wrongs of this on GC's part, on a simple matter of fact, why are they talking about £2M being the figure of debt? As I understood it the debt was £2.5M when

Posted Images

Side point, but as someone else raised the other day, that MCT statement leaping to the defence of the Raes really irked me. I understand they have to maintain working relationships for the next few months, but the language of the thing and tone towards supporters that weren’t sure if their club was about to go under really were not great. Not a knock on MCT’s overall communication, which has largely been good, but I’m still quite annoyed by the whole “How dare you” feel of that statement. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 1:19 PM, cmdc said:

Hi.

The devil is in the detail with all of this but based on what is known I think (and based on conversations with some commercial lawyers who know this stuff much better than I do) that option A offers the least risk (with a robust long term lease at peppercorn rate) and secret option C (wipe the debt and hand over the stadium) offers the most risk (as limited working capital/cash flow could impact on the security of the stadium). Option B sits somewhere in between but I wouldn’t say that it is unacceptable in principle. The view that MCT need to be tougher in negotiations over this might be right - but I wouldn’t be surprised if, in fact, MCT see options A and B as acceptable ways to minimise the risks that might arise from those potential limited working capital/potential cash flow issues. There is obviously a red flag where separating the club from its stadium is concerned - we’ve been here before and seen plenty of examples from elsewhere, so the concern is understandable - but it’s not beyond good lawyers to tie all that up.

So, let me get this right - the only possible options out there are only those which are on the table?

I thought that was one of the things which legal hotshots like yourself were supposed to do, explore all options and negotiate a suitable remedy.  There is a solution out there which would be favourable to both parties, it's staring everyone in the face but I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned especially with guys cognizant in law plus some familiar in aspects of property dealings.

  • Upvote 1

We may seem cold, or we may even be
The most depressing people you've ever known.
At heart, what's left, we sadly know
That we are the last truly British people you'll ever know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone thinks Rae's motivation in all of this is personal financial gain, then I'd like to see what they are putting in their sandwiches. 

If Rae was looking to gain financially, he'd have walked / sold years ago. They are still paying running costs to keep the lights on now. And Rae is still attending games. If he really didn't care, would he bother his arse? 

Personal view is that Rae is concerned a debt free / asset rich business, potentially run by a combination of fan committee and online polls, could quickly get in over their skis and end up mortgaging the property and whatever else. This could likely lead to administration where the whole lot could be sold at a cut down price with creditors effectively making that decision. 

I personally think that's unlikely and am positive MCT ownership will create opportunity and enthusiasm, but it's definitely not going to be easy for the club under new owners with not a huge amount of revenue to start with. 

With both options on the table, Rae would have an element of control if the club did go into financial hardship, either by being the owner of the asset or by being the primary creditor. I'm personally comfortable with those options if it means MCT take control. I'd rather that than roll the dice on Rae electing to sell to a 3rd party or the club meandering on in it's current state. 

Of course nothing is agreed till it's all signed and sealed, but I trust that the MCT board are thoroughly exploring all realistic options for a settlement with GC. 

Edited by piehutt
  • Downvote 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, piehutt said:

If anyone thinks Rae's motivation in all of this is personal financial gain, then I'd like to see what they are putting in their sandwiches. 

If Rae was looking to gain financially, he'd have walked / sold years ago. They are still paying running costs to keep the lights on now. And Rae is still attending games. If he really didn't care, would he bother his arse? 

Personal view is that Rae is concerned a debt free / asset rich business, potentially run by a combination of fan committee and online polls, could quickly get in over their skis and end up mortgaging the property and whatever else. This could likely lead to administration where the whole lot could be sold at a cut down price with creditors effectively making that decision. 

I personally think that's unlikely and am positive MCT ownership will create opportunity and enthusiasm, but it's definitely not going to be easy for the club under new owners with not a huge amount of revenue to start with. 

With both options on the table, Rae would have an element of control if the club did go into financial hardship, either by being the owner of the asset or by being the primary creditor. I'm personally comfortable with those options if it means MCT take control. I'd rather that than roll the dice on Rae electing to sell to a 3rd party or the club meandering on in it's current state. 

Of course nothing is agreed till it's all signed and sealed, but I trust that the MCT board are thoroughly exploring all realistic options for a settlement with GC. 

Rae doesn't have full control of GC. Would the GC board agree to step in and bail out Morton at their own expense? Even after they've been shot of the club for a number of years? Fantasy stuff.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bob_the_builder said:

You're putting a lot of faith in someone that has shown themselves to be rather untrustworthy in recent years.

There is no "debt", DDFR stated so publicly, so no matter how you dress this up Rae is still gaining financially with the 2 terrible options we're presented with? 

Option 1 he holds on the the keys to the only valuable asset the club has, who cares if the "debt" is written off?  If MCT fails to keep the club going (which I'm guessing he fully expects) then he's got the stadium to cash in on!

Option 2, the "debt" is still on the books and as such if MCT fails, GC are the main creditors and get the most say in how assets are divided so both options are win win for Rae.

Also what actual control or influence would Rae have if we did go into hardship?  None.  GC would own the stadium or have most say in use as an asset so he would have no influence on how we would run as a football club and how we would have to deal with the SPFL.  In that event it would be most likely that the board of GC would simply sell Cappielow as the terms of the lease would be most likely broken. 

I personally believe no one in their right mind would buy/take over running of Morton under those conditions and would almost certainly be the death of the club as a professional entity in the top leagues.  I truly hope MCT understand how pivotal this moment in the clubs future is.

People are painting Rae as this villain. He has still supported the club financially and personally, so I am some way off the view some of him have on here. Yes - they've made bad footballing decisions but they've also put hundreds of thousands in (far more than the £2m on the balance sheet, that they are not actually trying to recover). 

It would be interesting to know Rae's motives, whether there are tax or financial implications of writing off the debt at GC end. Perhaps in the event of a write off this becomes taxable as GC profits? Or is it simply that he is a businessman and doesn't want to give things away and that the asset could end up as a carrot to tempt another Hugh Scott type into the club. 

in terms of control... if Morton went into hardship under option 1 - having no major asset means this would never be any more than a cashflow issue. No lender is going to give us huge amounts of credit as it would be completely unsecured, so I don't believe the actual existence of Morton would at stake.

If Morton owned the stadium, then perhaps relatively tempting to access any credit that was on offer to ease cash flow worries, and things could spiral from there. 

Under option 2 - once again, with a £2m debt on the balance sheet... Morton raising substantial commercial finance or share capital is unlikely from anyone that would be expecting their money back. And if the club did go into administration, GC would likely be the largest creditor who would be due the biggest share of any assets - i.e. the stadium. Therefore, once again, much reduced chance of that falling into non-football hands. 

 

 

  • Downvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Crawford Rae is a wank. Case closed. 

This same sucking up his arse is the same as many did when Dougie was around. Folk are starting to wake up now and smell a rat. Get him out of our club pronto. He can keep the car park, but the stadium stays with us and the debt is wiped off as promised. I'd like to see MCT have some more backbone. 

  • Upvote 2

TIME FOR CHANGE!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, piehutt said:

People are painting Rae as this villain. He has still supported the club financially and personally, so I am some way off the view some of him have on here. Yes - they've made bad footballing decisions but they've also put hundreds of thousands in (far more than the £2m on the balance sheet, that they are not actually trying to recover). 

It would be interesting to know Rae's motives, whether there are tax or financial implications of writing off the debt at GC end. Perhaps in the event of a write off this becomes taxable as GC profits? Or is it simply that he is a businessman and doesn't want to give things away and that the asset could end up as a carrot to tempt another Hugh Scott type into the club. 

in terms of control... if Morton went into hardship under option 1 - having no major asset means this would never be any more than a cashflow issue. No lender is going to give us huge amounts of credit as it would be completely unsecured, so I don't believe the actual existence of Morton would at stake.

If Morton owned the stadium, then perhaps relatively tempting to access any credit that was on offer to ease cash flow worries, and things could spiral from there. 

Under option 2 - once again, with a £2m debt on the balance sheet... Morton raising substantial commercial finance or share capital is unlikely from anyone that would be expecting their money back. And if the club did go into administration, GC would likely be the largest creditor who would be due the biggest share of any assets - i.e. the stadium. Therefore, once again, much reduced chance of that falling into non-football hands. 

 

 

Deservedly so!  He's not doing any of this out of the goodness of his heart!  He/GC are obligated as the owners to keep people gainfully employed and a local institution alive!

If he/GC pulled the plug and killed a nationally recognised tier 2 football club simply because it no longer suits having GMFC on the GC books, the damage to his own and GC's reputation would be catastrophic!  

The motives are simple, whether they're his or the GC board's.  Claw some money back!  They may not be trying to recover all the £2.5M but they're certainly trying to recover some!  

As I mentioned above however, DDFR stated publicly Morton have no debt, he was GC and the money was spent by him.  Suddenly that "debt" is very real now that DDFR is sadly no longer with us and the fans are to cough up £400K to write it off but don't get any of the assets?!  The Rae's and/or GC are at it.  If they really wanted shot of Morton with it being such a drain to GC could they not simply write off the debt and hand everything over to MCT.  Nothing which would become of Morton in the future would be of any tarnish on theirs or DDFR's legacy if that's what they're worried about.  But they haven't.  Someone wants that money back!

Maybe there is possible tax implications with writing it off!  but I suspect it could be something as simple as HMRC suddenly see GC offloading Morton and becoming incredibly more profitable in the space of a tax year and suddenly decide to have a closer look at their books!

  • Upvote 1

here today, gone to hell

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, piehutt said:

People are painting Rae as this villain. He has still supported the club financially and personally, so I am some way off the view some of him have on here. Yes - they've made bad footballing decisions but they've also put hundreds of thousands in (far more than the £2m on the balance sheet, that they are not actually trying to recover). 

It would be interesting to know Rae's motives, whether there are tax or financial implications of writing off the debt at GC end. Perhaps in the event of a write off this becomes taxable as GC profits? Or is it simply that he is a businessman and doesn't want to give things away and that the asset could end up as a carrot to tempt another Hugh Scott type into the club. 

in terms of control... if Morton went into hardship under option 1 - having no major asset means this would never be any more than a cashflow issue. No lender is going to give us huge amounts of credit as it would be completely unsecured, so I don't believe the actual existence of Morton would at stake.

If Morton owned the stadium, then perhaps relatively tempting to access any credit that was on offer to ease cash flow worries, and things could spiral from there. 

Under option 2 - once again, with a £2m debt on the balance sheet... Morton raising substantial commercial finance or share capital is unlikely from anyone that would be expecting their money back. And if the club did go into administration, GC would likely be the largest creditor who would be due the biggest share of any assets - i.e. the stadium. Therefore, once again, much reduced chance of that falling into non-football hands. 

 

 

Crawford has been chairman for 2 and a half seasons, and we've seen 3 managers jump ship in that time. We didn't even bother to try to recruit a new manager after Hopkin resigned, or a new CEO after MacKinnon left. 

I'm not going to paint Crawford as the villain, I really don't know all the details, but there is either a question of competence, commitment, or actual control. Budget planning has been a disaster, for example, with significant backtracking in two out of his three seasons. Whatever the motivations, he's made a mess of his leadership of the club. 

I think it's fair to be skeptical over whether or not Crawford can keep any promises he makes, however well intentioned they might be. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

Crawford has been chairman for 2 and a half seasons, and we've seen 3 managers jump ship in that time. We didn't even bother to try to recruit a new manager after Hopkin resigned, or a new CEO after MacKinnon left. 

I'm not going to paint Crawford as the villain, I really don't know all the details, but there is either a question of competence, commitment, or actual control. Budget planning has been a disaster, for example, with significant backtracking in two out of his three seasons. Whatever the motivations, he's made a mess of his leadership of the club. 

I think it's fair to be skeptical over whether or not Crawford can keep any promises he makes, however well intentioned they might be. 

I for one bought into the whole three-year plan when it kicked off. We all know how that turned out. But even if we assume the absolute best of intentions from Crawford as an individual, it's clear that he's not the only powerbroker over at Rae Manor. The rest of them - quite justifiably it has to be said - probably view Morton as a millstone and just want it out of the way without too much damage to their bank accounts.

If I was in a similar situation and it was, say, some hopeless rugby club or water polo team that my family's company had been bankrolling, I'd probably not be too sentimental either. But I would expect the fans of that team to bitterly oppose me.

Edited by TRVMP
  • Upvote 1

The stadium was just resting in my account

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.