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

I think most people on here couldn't care less about Rae

We need to be made aware of which option is actually more financially viable?

It's all well and good splurting out options but surely to god the feasibility of these options has to be made more clear by MCT.

I may stand to be correct here.... the implications and extra overheads of owning the ground could be financial suicide. It certainly will add to costs which in turn would take away from the budget of the playing squad.

I always had the belief that 1 of MCTs main focuses was to make the product on the pitch better not contrive to make it worse.

  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nornirontons said:

I think most people on here couldn't care less about Rae

We need to be made aware of which option is actually more financially viable?

It's all well and good splurting out options but surely to god the feasibility of these options has to be made more clear by MCT.

I may stand to be correct here.... the implications and extra overheads of owning the ground could be financial suicide. It certainly will add to costs which in turn would take away from the budget of the playing squad.

I always had the belief that 1 of MCTs main focuses was to make the product on the pitch better not contrive to make it worse.

While the details are not fully fleshed out, Option 1 clearly states:

  • The club, owned by MCT, will be responsible for the general maintenance and repair of the ground.

So either way we're on the hook for maintenance and repair. What other overheads there are (tax?), it's not clear, but I'll hazard a guess that MCT will be responsible. And as for capital improvements, I doubt I'm the only one to have asked this but given that I raised it to MCT last July and nobody's said a peep about it since then, who knows what's happening with those? Not that it's that important in the grand scheme of things because a wee shan office and a floodlight (to give two examples of potential new structures) are pretty worthless without the ground they're constructed on.

Not sure why you think "spending money on the ground" is only going to happen with ownership, then, given that MCT have made it plain for ages now that we're on the hook for Cappielow regardless.

Spunking all MCT's money on an expensive squad is not an option, never has been an option, and never will be an option. If your main concern about MCT is the shape of the playing squad you are sorely misreading the situation.

Edited by TRVMP
  • Upvote 2

The stadium was just resting in my account

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TRVMP said:

While the details are not fully fleshed out, Option 1 clearly states:

  • The club, owned by MCT, will be responsible for the general maintenance and repair of the ground.

So either way we're on the hook for maintenance and repair. What other overheads there are (tax?), it's not clear, but I'll hazard a guess that MCT will be responsible. And as for capital improvements, I doubt I'm the only one to have asked this but given that I raised it to MCT last July and nobody's said a peep about it since then, who knows what's happening with those? Not that it's that important in the grand scheme of things because a wee shan office and a floodlight (to give two examples of potential new structures) are pretty worthless without the ground they're constructed on.

Not sure why you think "spending money on the ground" is only going to happen with ownership, then, given that MCT have made it plain for ages now that we're on the hook for Cappielow regardless.

Spunking all MCT's money on an expensive squad is not an option, never has been an option, and never will be an option. If your main concern about MCT is the shape of the playing squad you are sorely misreading the situation.

Sorry but you seem to have missed my point....what are the extra costs incurred by owning the stadium and is this viable for MCT...or what would it impact?

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nornirontons said:

Sorry but you seem to have missed my point....what are the extra costs incurred by owning the stadium and is this viable for MCT...or what would it impact?

I haven't missed your point. MCT are on the hook for general maintenance and repair regardless of who owns the ground.

There is no mortgage, there is no external note secured against the ground - it's currently owned free and clear by GMFC Ltd.

Tax - not sure. Given the peppercorn rent situation, I'm sure GC will float us the 25 pence they'd need to pay the government on their pound of rental income. Beyond that, it's hard to see where this doesn't fold into general maintenance expenditure.

Capex - again, grey area but completely irrelevant to extra costs of ownership since we'd be on the hook for those regardless.

Let's try this another way. Explain what possible expenditure there is that isn't covered by that bullet point, and why it wouldn't ultimately be the club owner's responsibility anyway.

  • Upvote 1

The stadium was just resting in my account

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Let's just assume for a minute that Crawford is genuine in trying to protect the long-term interest of GMFC by keeping ownership of Cappielow with GC, to prevent it from being a creditor asset if we go administration at some point in the future.

There are two big red flags in that argument that should concern us all. Firstly, Crawford himself won't be around forever and will not always have a controlling interest in GC (does he even have now?). This 'promise' is only valid while this is still the case. Secondly, it assumes GC themselves will never get into financial difficulties in the future. If they do, a 2m pound sleeping asset bringing them in 1 pound a week will surely be top of the list for selling-off. In fact, if they they needed that cash to stay afloat and keep the jobs in Fort Maltilda, it would be remiss of then not to do so. 

This is a route to perma-diddydome and Lowland League obscurity, with Ravenscraig as our home. The only question would be how long it would take us to get there. I'd say 10 years, 20 if we're lucky. 

The first red flag isn't such a significant issue. A robust long term lease would bite against GC's/Cappielow's successor owners. That might also answer the second concern. If, for example, GC went into administration then the lease terms should hold. There would be a more significant problem if GC then went into liquidation.

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cmdc said:

The first red flag isn't such a significant issue. A robust long term lease would bite against GC's/Cappielow's successor owners. That might also answer the second concern. If, for example, GC went into administration then the lease terms should hold. There would be a more significant problem if GC then went into liquidation.

Do you really think GC will enter into a 1 pound a week lease in perpetuity, without some kind of get-out clause? That's naïve in the extreme.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Do you really think GC will enter into a 1 pound a week lease in perpetuity, without some kind of get-out clause? That's naïve in the extreme.

I don't know - hence why I think we need more details before we can decide between (or against) these options. What MCT have said is that the lease will run for so long as MCT are the owners of Morton, so we need a bit more on how that commitment is to be secured (the point being that it is possible to secure that position pretty robustly) and maybe what that might mean for MCT's potential successors.  

Edited by cmdc
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nornirontons said:

I think most people on here couldn't care less about Rae

We need to be made aware of which option is actually more financially viable?

It's all well and good splurting out options but surely to god the feasibility of these options has to be made more clear by MCT.

I may stand to be correct here.... the implications and extra overheads of owning the ground could be financial suicide. It certainly will add to costs which in turn would take away from the budget of the playing squad.

I always had the belief that 1 of MCTs main focuses was to make the product on the pitch better not contrive to make it worse.

Another Rae arse licker who pretended to be a ‘concerned fan’ for a while. The mask has slipped. Fuck off.

Edited by Alan_Partridge_Ton
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TheGoon said:

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. 

How dare you question MCT! Don’t you know the directors have been life long Morton fans since 2019?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Alan_Partridge_Ton said:

Another Rae arse licker who pretend to be a ‘concerned fan’ for a while. The mask has slipped. Fuck off.

My concern is that MCT dont make a complete arse of this and waste fans money... thanks very much.... bloody idiot!!!!!

  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nornirontons said:

My concern is that MCT dont make a complete arse of this and waste fans money... thanks very much.... bloody idiot!!!!!

Again: what ground expenditures do you think they'd be on the hook for in case of ownership that they're not on the hook for via GC ownership? Bear in mind we know that repairs and general maintenance are MCT's responsibility, and the GC's stated reason (for the half-dozen people on earth who actually believe this horseshit) for taking the ground isn't because they want to maintain it or do anything with it, but to protect the asset from creditors. Why, if this is their stated reason, would they be seeking to upgrade the ground or spend anything on it? That's not what they said they want it for.

If you really are concerned about MCT's part in this you need to take the facts as they are - GC have given no indication, either through statements or action, that they are going to shell out anything for Cappielow after their take it. Their largesse extends to the peppercorn rent situation (jolly decent of them, given that they're getting a stonking great asset for free.)

The stadium was just resting in my account

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TRVMP said:

Again: what ground expenditures do you think they'd be on the hook for in case of ownership that they're not on the hook for via GC ownership? Bear in mind we know that repairs and general maintenance are MCT's responsibility, and the GC's stated reason (for the half-dozen people on earth who actually believe this horseshit) for taking the ground isn't because they want to maintain it or do anything with it, but to protect the asset from creditors. Why, if this is their stated reason, would they be seeking to upgrade the ground or spend anything on it? That's not what they said they want it for.

If you really are concerned about MCT's part in this you need to take the facts as they are - GC have given no indication, either through statements or action, that they are going to shell out anything for Cappielow after their take it. Their largesse extends to the peppercorn rent situation (jolly decent of them, given that they're getting a stonking great asset for free.)

Your quite the keyboard warrior.

I don't confess to be a matriarchal stat welding, quote throwing poster like yourself. I have a life.

I asked a question that you yourself couldn't answer.

Questions ultimately can be speculated till the bloody cows come home. 

The only people with the answers are MCT and clearly they will not post on here to explain their hand at this stage!!! All the same questions will be asked and speculation will not stop!!!

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nornirontons said:

Your quite the keyboard warrior.

I don't confess to be a matriarchal stat welding, quote throwing poster like yourself. I have a life.

I asked a question that you yourself couldn't answer.

Questions ultimately can be speculated till the bloody cows come home. 

The only people with the answers are MCT and clearly they will not post on here to explain their hand at this stage!!! All the same questions will be asked and speculation will not stop!!!

I've never hidden my identity on here. Feel free to give me a call or hop on a plane to visit if you absolutely must, I absolutely do not bite.

No matter what happens, MCT are on the hook for the repair and general maintenance of the ground. These comprise by far the greatest non-capital expenditures associated with ground ownership. Any non-capital expenditure not addressed here is just a distraction.

Your contention at this point, if you read back on what you said, is that there are some extra overheads that would be suicidal in the case of ownership. Given that MCT is liable for ground overheads anyway, it's hardly unreasonable to ask you what these are.

The stadium was just resting in my account

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TaunTon said:

Anybody have an idea what the rates/rateable value for Cappielow and does a community owned club qualify for discounts?

As of 2017 the rateable value was around 20k. Surely it's not gone up much since then? And in any case because of the South African virus there's various leisure-related reductions in place. Obviously that won't last forever but we're talking a very small amount of money compared to the club's annual turnover. It's not nothing but nor is it a significant amount compared to the repair and maintenance. 

edit: Looked it up, it's still 19k. With the pishy wee "relief" applied the rates are £9,310.61.

Again, not nothing, but this pales in comparison to maintenance costs, and most importantly at no time have GC intimated that they are going to pay this.

Edited by TRVMP

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.