Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com
advertisement_alt

TopCat

Members
  • Content Count

    495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About TopCat

  • Rank
    GMFC Supporter

Recent Profile Visitors

3454 profile views
  1. I'd say a lot of that is down to our strikers being absolutely terrible. The long throw also wins a fair amount of corners and forces the opposition to sit deep and defend the throw as if it were a corner, generating more pressure (which we don't do anything with, because we're rubbish in the box).
  2. Pure speculation here - shifting a significant asset and writing off a big lump of bad debt at the same time would be tricky at the best of times for a small/medium sized firm without creating major issues in terms of existing/potential borrowing. Would a situation like brexit/covid/recession make this any easier? When a business might need a bit more borrowing power than usual?
  3. 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.
  4. In simple terms - the Raes price for the club is; the carpark and a massive, perpetual sell-on clause. The vast majority of the £2m figure just isn't recoverable for GC/the Raes without a protracted, uncertain sales process with significant public opposition and significant reputational harm to GC/the Raes. Im not talking about technical definitions here, im talking about the actual, real-world deal to be agreed between buyer and seller - it isn't debt, its Dougie's money that's been spent. If they come back to the table with a more realistic number that wouldn't either a) pot
  5. I don't think anyone disagrees with the need for more detail, or even the fact that the two options need to be compared (assuming that these options are, in rough principle, a final offer in terms of valuation). What most folk disagree with is this assumption that the Raes valuation of both the debt and the club's assets are a reasonable position based in realistic debt recovery assessments. As things stand, both options present long term risks to the club from a claim to the £2m/the stadium by a 3rd party. There is also a potential (admittedly more tenuous) ongoing risk of claim to the d
  6. Both options effectively put a huge obstacle (2 million quid!) in front of any future investor who actually has Morton's interests at heart. I get that it protects us from vultures, but it works the other way as well. Fan ownership doesn't need to mean 100% fan owned for the next 100 years. GC are effectively blocking other options (no time limit on their claim) until either party goes belly up.
  7. Ive got one main question for Crawford etc.: 'Could the £2m debt (and to a lesser extent the value of the car park land) be reasonably written off in the short to medium term by GC without putting GC at risk?' Gradually writing down the debt in exchange for cash injections was the central idea floated at the formation of MCT. Has this offer to the fans been retracted? The lack of clarity on this aspect (not to mention literally anything else about the club's financial position) still makes taking on a huge liability on trust a wee bit hard to swallow. Motive is key here - is the
  8. It isn't fair to assume that the Raes are pocketing a government grant. On the other hand, it also isn't reasonable to just assume that the current owners will act entirely selflessly and in the club's best interests. The owners need the fans to take the club off their hands. They need the government grant. It isn't unreasonable to expect more transparency (and less spin) than is usually the case with the Raes, given the circumstances.
  9. Haven't seen it posted on here - MCT will contribute £100k to the first team budget this season and also hold a further webinar aimed at non-members (date tbc).
  10. Tumilty is a decent, if erratic, full back who was punted out on loan to a lower division last season. There's little chance Hopkin would be offering a 2 year deal to a player like that, particularly as we have properly key positions like a goalkeeper, CBs and strikers still to find space in the budget for. I get that the club's communications aren't helping but this isn't reason enough to panic.
  11. Tidser also spent as much time out of form/injured as he did pulling the strings for us. Bringing him into a squad laden with centre-mids as a high earner doesn't make much sense. We need a competent striker who can stretch the play and bully teams and an actual right back. Hopkin isn't going to give up on hoofball so even a brilliant centre mid could still be bypassed for the bulk of our play.
  12. I agree with Dunning that withdrawing support for a scheme like this based on short term first team performance doesn't make much sense. The club would potentially have to deal with reduced financial security every time we hit a bad run of form. I haven't pledged because I simply dont trust Golden Casket. The idea of handing money over for players before having confirmation of debt write-downs seems ludicrous to me. Does this scheme exist to prop the club up and still let the Raes run it?
  13. Miller could only play the ball with the inside of his foot. That just about sums him up.
  14. I dont see the board taking a punt on signing players in this window. If they're really serious about breaking even they'll wait to see if the direct debits remain steady, at least until January. We've got the league cup prize money already secured. Hopefully that will pay for a decent goalkeeper.
×
×
  • Create New...