Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

cmdc

Members
  • Posts

    5194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

cmdc last won the day on April 27 2021

cmdc had the most liked content!

About cmdc

  • Birthday 10/24/1982

Profile Information

  • Location
    Greenock

Recent Profile Visitors

15148 profile views

cmdc's Achievements

251

Reputation

  1. That's a dangerous line. It has been a real problem, in the aftermath of the criminal trial, that complainants and witnesses have been identified explicitly or by heavy implication and/or accused of lying.
  2. Don’t think that’s fair. It’s open to anyone to stand. Two people did, and the members voted for them. If people want fresh faces the opportunity is there, but someone has to take it by putting themselves forward or encouraging others to stand.
  3. The irony of your use of dishonesty and obsession is not lost on me!
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. I presume their real life lawyers were advising them on those options before they were made public and put to a vote, no?
  7. 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).”
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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...
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Sound. I’ll leave you be on fantasy island.
×
×
  • Create New...