Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

Morton Club Together Updates


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, TRVMP said:

Some kind of park-and-ride thing for out-of-towners, maybe, but not sure what the demand would be.

On the occasions I would drive to games I'd park around 10 minutes' walk away in a residential street.

We have - as most provincial clubs do - an aging fanbase, many of whom won't be steady on their feet, and I think that these people should have priority for parking near the ground. Maybe even a drop-off zone. But I don't know how feasible that is.

I generally travel through with my old dad and we tend to park at the marina. I’ve done the bus and two trains from East Kilbride with a friend a couple of times and it was no hardship, but my dad won’t be in to it, even with his titanium knee. He’d be happy to use a park and ride, though. An extra quid or two per game on the season ticket wouldn’t be so bad for the service. Or better yet I pay a small charge and he gets it free as a senior.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • 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

The car park or whatever happened in the past doesn't really matter. 

A fans group has the club, a stadium, around 300k and hopefully a place in the championship. 

As a club we're not getting a better opportunity to move forward. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm admittedly bitter towards the Rae's so all I think they should be walking away with is what they bought the club for.  £425K or whatever it was.  That was DR's initial statement and it should be honoured.

"CORNBEEF IS A BELLEND"

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 7:19 AM, cmdc said:

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).

I can't believe that Golden Casket have been so remiss as to place the club into such a risky situation. Surely Morton Club Together will go back, cap in hand, and ask Crawford to please, please keep the stadium.

The car park was just resting in my account

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

I can't believe that Golden Casket have been so remiss as to place the club into such a risky situation. Surely Morton Club Together will go back, cap in hand, and ask Crawford to please, please keep the stadium.

MCT’s own explanation of the current deal says

As we outlined there are several variables which complicate the issue, and this is the reason why it is not simple for Golden Casket to transfer the shareholding and ground to MCT. In the case where this did happen there may be future significant tax liabilities for all parties involved which could lead to a situation where the club and ground may be at risk.”

And I note you didn’t quote the post where I said a propco/opco option could be workable.

Good of you to not engage though...

Edited by cmdc
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cmdc said:

MCT’s own explanation of the current deal says

As we outlined there are several variables which complicate the issue, and this is the reason why it is not simple for Golden Casket to transfer the shareholding and ground to MCT. In the case where this did happen there may be future significant tax liabilities for all parties involved which could lead to a situation where the club and ground may be at risk.”

And I note you didn’t quote the post where I said a propco/opco option could be workable.

Good of you to not engage though...

Incredible legal insight as always! Certainly without your pointing this out - after your argument got hilariously fucking demolished, with both sides' lawyers thinking it a non-starter for serious negotiation - none of us could have figured this out ages ago. Go back a few pages, you'll see several people asking the same question.

(Any onlookers wishing to conduct the same experiment may wish to count the number of times cmdc mentioned the tax, rather than rent implications of such an arrangement. This offer is especially open to readers with no fingers, and/or people practiced in the shifting of goalposts.)

There was never, ever a compelling reason for GC to be the entity that held the deeds to Cappielow, except the Raes wanting "their" money back. Your ham-fisted attempts to conflate advantageous tax arrangements with "the Raes get to keep everything forever otherwise Morton are in big trouble guys!" were transparently shan then and are even worse two months on.

The time to endorse a "propco" was months ago. Your plain preference for Morton's risk - ha ha ha - was Option A, losing the stadium to GC with a peppercorn rent. Now neither GC nor MCT want anything to do with it? What's changed?

And on the final point, I remind you of my earlier reversal:

On 2/19/2021 at 6:12 PM, TRVMP said:

Life's too short not to extend the possibility of redemption. I will go back on my word and engage on points of substance.

As they say: Act in haste, repent at leisure. Not the first time I've had to learn such a lesson, but then again I'm a huge advocate of lifelong learning.

  • Upvote 1

The car park was just resting in my account

Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s no real point distracting from the discussion of the current deal with a back and forth about this now, but options A and B weren’t my arguments to be (“hilariously”) demolished - they were the options actually on the table at that time, put by MCT, after actual negotiations between GC and MCT and their (very good) lawyers. That was my view of the two options on the table and what I’d seen as the most commonly cited alternative/ideal which was a clean transfer to MCT. I said in February when this was announced (the same week - how many months further back can it go?) that a propco model could be workable but not without its own risks. What’s changed? The options on the table have changed. 

Like I said at the time, I think you misinterpret what I say because you wrongly assume that behind it all is some kind of pro-GC agenda. Which is fine, that’s your view, and I’m sure I won’t change that.

Edited by cmdc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, lies. I didn't say the options were your argument. I said the preference for option A as the least risky was your argument - and I asked you earlier tonight why both MCT and GC would have agreed to it in such a case, given GC's apparent duty of care towards the club (they were, after all, going to selflessly encumber themselves with the deeds to Cappielow - a gesture of Geldofian magnitude) and MCT's obvious desire to make a go of it. Of course, Option A as a benign, safekeeping arrangement was a complete and utter fiction from day one. That is why MCT's real-life lawyers weren't having it, and preceding that, it was why several laypeople on this thread, and many many more in the MCT survey, and on Facebook, and elsewhere, pointed out the absurdity - the literal meaninglessness - of signing over the ground to a creditor to ensure that it didn't have to be signed over to a creditor.

If you want to cast your prior inout as prudent caution against tax implications, I can say with confidence that only your friends are going to believe you. It's so clearly at odds with reality that it's not just admitted weirdos like me who are going to find it incredible. Anyone can look back for themselves and read it. 

The car park was just resting in my account

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

Again, lies. I didn't say the options were your argument. I said the preference for option A as the least risky was your argument - and I asked you earlier tonight why both MCT and GC would have agreed to it in such a case, given GC's apparent duty of care towards the club (they were, after all, going to selflessly encumber themselves with the deeds to Cappielow - a gesture of Geldofian magnitude) and MCT's obvious desire to make a go of it. Of course, Option A as a benign, safekeeping arrangement was a complete and utter fiction from day one. That is why MCT's real-life lawyers weren't having it, and preceding that, it was why several laypeople on this thread, and many many more in the MCT survey, and on Facebook, and elsewhere, pointed out the absurdity - the literal meaninglessness - of signing over the ground to a creditor to ensure that it didn't have to be signed over to a creditor.

If you want to cast your prior inout as prudent caution against tax implications, I can say with confidence that only your friends are going to believe you. It's so clearly at odds with reality that it's not just admitted weirdos like me who are going to find it incredible. Anyone can look back for themselves and read it. 

Of the three options, lease (option A), secured debt and a clean transfer of ownership to MCT I think A was the least risky option of the three, yeah. I still think that. I thought another option that was being discussed, a propco model, could work, and I still think that. I’m not sure what you are arguing here. Or why. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What third option? You archly, unfunnily described it as "secret option C" before opining that neither side wanted it. 

The car park was just resting in my account

Link to post
Share on other sites

What might be called the ‘ideal’/clean option of Morton taking ownership of the stadium.

The day the Telegraph reported on the emergence of a second (secured debt) option this is what I said:

“I happen to think that of the two options on the table it is likely that - detaching the emotion from it - the first option (a robust long lease along the lines of 175 years, at peppercorn rate, with no break clause, biting on GC's successors but that might be reliant on GC's own financial health) entails less risk than the second (ownership but with a standard security that might be triggered in, and complicated by, a number of different scenarios). It remains to be seen how these options are pursued or if other options come on to the table (the idea of (MCT's) Morton protecting the stadium behind a property company is probably workable on its own terms - but it is not without risks (one, for example, might be any value attached to the asset at the point of transfer) and there looks to be a long way from the present position to there).”

 

Edited by cmdc
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TRVMP said:

That is why MCT's real-life lawyers weren't having it,

I presume their real life lawyers were advising them on those options before they were made public and put to a vote, no?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that's the same as an endorsement, putting it to a vote?

The car park was just resting in my account

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's one thing I've learned over the last few posts it is that you don't quite grasp what constitutes an endorsement so I'll leave it there. There's a deal on the table that deserves more attention than your latest concocted drama.

Edited by cmdc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Far be it from me to keep you from examining the deal on the table - the "secret option C" that neither side wanted, the one whose tax implications were so paramount that you didn't once mention them.

The car park was just resting in my account

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be rude, but you are clearly not capable of grasping this (for starters, the deal on the table is not 'secret option C' if we're sticking with that - that was Morton taking ownership of the stadium, and with no debt). You are so utterly blinkered by your view of me and my (entirely non-existent) relationship with GC that it is a complete waste of time for you, me and anyone reading. I'm sure you'll lash out with a "liar" or by plucking another fantasy from the air (I liked the one about me muddying the waters, or however you described it, on the feasibility study, this tax thing is a red herring too but is probably lash out if I’d made this much of a tit of myself too) but it gets us precisely nowhere.

46 minutes ago, TRVMP said:

Far be it from me to keep you from examining the deal on the table - the "secret option C" that neither side wanted, the one whose tax implications were so paramount that you didn't once mention them.

 

Edited by cmdc
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cmdc said:

Not to be rude, but you are clearly not capable of grasping this (for starters, the deal on the table is not 'secret option C' if we're sticking with that - that was Morton taking ownership of the stadium, and with no debt). You are so utterly blinkered by your view of me and my (entirely non-existent) relationship with GC that it is a complete waste of time for you, me and anyone reading. I'm sure you'll lash out with a "liar" or by plucking another fantasy from the air (I liked the one about me muddying the waters, or however you described it, on the feasibility study) but it gets us precisely nowhere.

Why are you so obsessed with "Morton" taking ownership of the stadium? You said yourself that there was the possibility of using a property company, didn't you? To whom GC hands over the stadium is immaterial when it comes to GC's disposal of the asset. That is: whether it is Greenock Morton FC Ltd., NewCo 2021 Ltd., or Totally Separate Stadium Enterprises Ltd. that has the asset on its books is a matter of technical detail, not existential fact.

Thus the three bullet points combined do make Option C - a debt-free club with ownership of its stadium. To deny this based on corporate structure is dishonest; it'd be like saying that Golden Casket doesn't own the current GMFC Ltd. because it's a separate entity:

Quote
  • The full debt currently owed by Greenock Morton to Golden Casket will be written off.
  • A new company will be set up and ownership of Cappielow, as well as Golden Casket’s 75% ownership of Greenock Morton will be transferred to this new company.  The new company will be owned by Morton Club Together, ensuring Cappielow is in the control of the fans.
  • The above will mean that Morton Club Together will own approximately 90% of Greenock Morton – Golden Casket’s 75% and the current 15% held already by Morton Club Together.

Wipe off the debt? Check. Hand over the stadium? Check. Happy days. Well, for most of us.

The car park was just resting in my account

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

Why are you so obsessed with "Morton" taking ownership of the stadium? You said yourself that there was the possibility of using a property company, didn't you? To whom GC hands over the stadium is immaterial when it comes to GC's disposal of the asset. That is: whether it is Greenock Morton FC Ltd., NewCo 2021 Ltd., or Totally Separate Stadium Enterprises Ltd. that has the asset on its books is a matter of technical detail, not existential fact.

Thus the three bullet points combined do make Option C - a debt-free club with ownership of its stadium. To deny this based on corporate structure is dishonest; it'd be like saying that Golden Casket doesn't own the current GMFC Ltd. because it's a separate entity:

Wipe off the debt? Check. Hand over the stadium? Check. Happy days. Well, for most of us.

The irony of your use of dishonesty and obsession is not lost on me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

fair play to all involved. I was always sceptical that Morton (under MCT) should have a substantial asset that would be very tempting to run up debt on or be the subject of unscrupulous takeover bids. 

I also couldn't really see if GC could write off £2M+ of debt to a solvent company without HMRC potentially assessing those funds as 'income' they had taken out of GC and spent running their football club. 

My belief is that the original deal was to protect Cappielow from falling into the wrong hands or a sale being forced due to financial hardship. As well as a way of keeping the GC balance sheet in check. 

I know people seem to think of Rae as some kind of enemy of the club, and you are entitled to your view, but I certainly don't see it this way and there's dozens of things he could have done if he just wanted some cash out of all of this. I didn't see how Rae was benefitting from the previous deal and I don't think he will or is trying to benefit from this deal. Other than the fact he won't be underwriting the running costs of a football club any more. 

With this new deal, they are perhaps operating at the margins of what HMRC would be happy with... but as we've long argued on these pages Cappielow & the car park could be worth anything from £1 to £millions, depending on what you plan to do with the land.  

On the wider point of MCT... I think we / they certainly have a job on their hands, but I do believe they can run the club much more effectively and make better use of our resources than the previous owners have done over the past decade or so. Here's hoping they at least start with owning a Championship club. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cmdc said:

The irony of your use of dishonesty and obsession is not lost on me!

Do me a favor and tell me where I'm being dishonest. If you can do so with reference to the post you quoted, even better.

Obsessed? Well, I suppose so. It does matter to me that Morton continues to exist and has a fighting chance at professional survival.

The car park 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...