Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

TopCat

Members
  • Posts

    516
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TopCat

  1. Gradual improvement under MCT is the only show in town. Being raging about 30 years worth of our useless chairmen and Morton's rightful place is old-man-shakes-fist-at-cloud stuff. We've only just managed to slither out from under the last useless regime and their massive pile of debt. MCT might turn out to be a total disaster (and the signs so far aren't exactly inspiring) but sitting hopefully waiting for a new ultra-competent owner to pop out of the woodwork is speculative birthday card pish.
  2. Ownership aside - we're not in a position to compete financially with the likes of Dunfermline - they're a bigger club with a bigger fanbase and a more expensive playing squad. Their underperformance is down to their tinpot management setup making a mess of the budget they have. Unless some idiot with a penchant for frittering money like early-years Dougie Rae turns up at our door then that financial gap isn't going to close. Even then, a big chunk of Rae's stewardship was an outright disaster, there's no reason to expect success from someone new. We're already a tinpot outfit because we're a Championship club with a core of 1800 fans and a diminishing pool of potential new supporters. The best we can realistically expect from MCT or a new owner is a marginal improvement on that. There's no point doom mongering just because you don't like that situation.
  3. Good to see the board putting their heads above the parapet a bit. I don't think anyone reasonably expects slick production or carefully coached answers to questions - those things take a lot of time and money. I'm sure everyone involved is putting in a lot of voluntary effort behind the scenes as well. That said, it would be good to see some examples of what we're trying to do and when we're trying to do it. The fanbase can't expect to see detailed budgets and cashflow reports but I think we should expect a bit of detail on the club's proposals. There's clearly a budget shortfall to be made up with increased commercial income before we get to break-even, with the government grant providing a cushion. How are we planning to close that gap? The football on show and Gus' contract are valid points for discussion but this shortfall is the thing that will sink our chances of Championship football long-term.
  4. Who would have thought taking on a manager and a load of players who failed at championship level the season before wouldn't work out.
  5. "A budget was produced and a squad structure was agreed upon with the management team. Members of the incoming club board and the management team are in regular communication, processes that weren’t previously there at the club are now in place and discussions are constantly happening to add to the squad." What does that second rambling sentence even mean? That no one has been available to sign off on transfers? That the budget has been overspent in the past?
  6. The apologetic tone of the email is welcome, especially on the comms side of things. If they sort out more regular updates and take a more open approach going forward then last couple of months will soon be forgotten about. The takeover completion stuff sounds much more open ended than than it has done in their previous emails - no specifics on what the issues are or any mention of target dates either. Are the outstanding tasks required to finalise the takeover or are they just part a more general programme?
  7. Struggling to think of deliveries Morton have put in this season which are anywhere near as good as the ones Forbes has been swinging in here. Muirhead had one from the left and the "what a baw!" cutback was good but that's about it for the season.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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) potentially kill the club stone dead or b) ward off future investment in perpetuity then the details of the options start to look more reasonable.
  11. 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 debt/stadium, should the club secure significant funding in the future, such as e.g. a new buyer or e.g. investment to build a new main stand. Id like to see a time limit placed on the GC agreement for that reason, which I'm sure they'd be more than happy to accommodate for a paper debt.
  12. 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.
  13. 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 debt transfer purely to protect the club from insolvency? The club's fate being tied to disinterested family business in perpetuity also isn't an acceptable position if there is no plausible debt exit strategy.
  14. 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).
  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. Miller could only play the ball with the inside of his foot. That just about sums him up.
  18. 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.
  19. The Norseman is an absolute hole. The fact that it's right next to Cappielow is not a redeeming feature.
  20. The annual cost of BT & Sky can significantly exceed the 10k fine typically handed down for dodging the fees. I don't much care for landlords' bank balances either but these rates are probably contributing to the shift towards big chains.
  21. That's an absolutely astonishing statement for a supposedly professional organisation to make. If what they're saying is true, they've completely passed the buck on their own responsibility to protect their employee. Why wait until the guy has reached the end of his tether and then try to resolve the problem with more public confrontation?
  22. The Bury Chairman has gone quite mad; https://www.buryfc.co.uk/news/2019/may/a-statement-from-the-chairman/
  23. The EPL playoffs have been great so far. Derby currently 3-2 up away at Leeds in a game with some high quality goals and some equally daft ones.
  24. The thing I dislike the most about it is the fact it's a place "to be seen" for a certain section of Inverclyde's upwardly-mobiles. Like a shite version of the Ivy. The amount of people who make a point of turning round/looking up to see if they recognize every person who walks in the door is unbelievable. Other than that it's not bad for a Sunday afternoon if you need somewhere to take your relatives.
×
×
  • Create New...