cmdc

Alan Moore in charge at Clyde - Lennon put on paid leave.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).”

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Sound. I’ll leave you be on fantasy island.

This is such a bizarre fantasy.

Oh

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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).

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 successors’) whim.

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.

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 bonkers to to look at ways to shield the stadium from creditors and it is very possible - depending on the terms! - that the most straightforward and least risky option is its transfer and lease back. But - as much as Ewan has criticised me for saying so - here the details really matter. There’s a thin line between stripping an asset and protecting it from insolvency processes. MCT seem confident in their ability to raise more revenue and to make the running of the club more efficient but equally aware that, with limited working capital, further pandemic restrictions or a particularly severe winter impact on home matches could bite quite quickly. There are significant risks in all directions, so the question becomes what is the most robust way to mitigate those risks. The options presented by GC/MCT each have their merits in that regard as well as their red flags. The only firm view I have on any of this is that, to make an informed choice, we need to know more a bit more still about what each option looks like.

Absolutely bonkers.