Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


cmdc last won the day on November 15 2020

cmdc had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

250 Excellent

About cmdc

  • Rank
    GMFC Supporter
  • Birthday 10/24/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Twitter

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

14427 profile views
  1. Agree with this - hard to argue with what he achieved at St Mirren and at Queen’s Park over decent stretches. Hopefully QOTS was an exception. Though from memory wasn’t it ditching Lennon for Craig that did for St Mirren?
  2. From the outside looking in, Stewart Petrie seems to be doing a really good job with Montrose and could possibly come into the same bracket.
  3. Right. But just to repeat what I said, wasn’t the March deadline about MCT proving financial viability rather than transferring ownership? In the former case there is still room for negotiations about the details of the transfer of ownership to be negotiated and concluded beyond that point.
  4. Wasn’t the March 2021 deadline about an agreement that MCT were financially viable owners (at which point, if not, there was a delay mechanism) rather than the point at which ownership changed hands? That’s how I read the original announcement.
  5. Sound. I’ll leave you be on fantasy island.
  6. This is such a bizarre fantasy.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. I guess so. It would - depending on the lease terms - safeguard us against a change of motivation/intent by GC (i.e. this is the opposite of assuming good intentions always on the part of GC), a change in ownership of GC, or sale of the stadium/car park. On the car park - as I understand it that would be leased back under both options so it is possible (but, like I keep saying - details!) to protect that in the same way (ie long term, peppercorn rate, no break clause) whether we go for lease or ownership of Cappielow itself.
  10. On the specific question about the lease - a robust lease would survive the sale of the stadium. The question would (or should) then be whether Morton have first option to buy it outright (or are able to compete with other prospective buyers if not) or whether they would have new landlords for the duration of the lease.
  11. I'm quite happy to stand by the position that the details really matter here and that real risks attach to all of these options that have to be better understood and balanced, and in your recurring stadium costs example I'm also quite happy - as was the case then - to correct myself where I make an error. So I can live with your filing system. 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 th
  12. I’d credit Kafka with more intelligence than that. I’m not utterly convinced of anything here. Hence why I think it’s important to know more about how GC can be bound - in law - to restrictive terms relating to any lease or standard security. On the basis of what is in the public domain so far (no more than that) my opinion (no more than that) is that the short term risk with regard to MCT’s potential position with regard to working capital outweighs the longer term risks that have been pointed out throughout the thread - IF, for example with option A, any lease is robust against GC (or their
  13. I suspect it isn’t on the cards - it might be - because it doesn’t look to me like either party wants it, at least in the short-medium term. From what we know, but who knows what is happening in the negotiations, there seems to be some common ground about the need to shield - or the desirability of shielding - the stadium from creditors.
  14. I think you’ve maybe missed the point here - what I’ve said is that what constitutes the greater risk depends on the terms of the negotiations. If, for example, you have a robust long term lease, at a peppercorn rate, with no break clause etc then you aren’t relying on goodwill so much as you are relying on a legally binding undertaking. Same if you place restrictions upon the capacity of GC to call in any debt secured against the stadium, albeit with a bit more complexity and therefore room for ambiguity. As a pure matter of commercial law or banking and insolvency practice it is far from bon
  • Create New...