Morton Club Together Updates - Page 13 - General Morton Chatter - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

Morton Club Together Updates


Admin

Recommended Posts

Did he speak to the same shareholders before pledging a three year plan to take Morton to the top flight just twelve months ago, only to be told 'nah, that's not happening' and was forced to renege on that vision within the same season?

 

There's as much supporting evidence for GC's willingness to write off the debt as there is for the above plan. Now that doesn't make pledging money to MCT pointless, but this idea that GC is either tacitly bound or has agreed behind the scenes to whatever Crawford wants to tell people is truly laughable. We should not trust GC to act in anyone's interests but their own - it's a business, not a fucking charity.

 

 

And the formal agreements will not be achieved by the support of Crawford Rae alone, but rather by the larger shareholders who actually call the shots.

They had one majority shareholder when he had the three year plan so he didn't really have to although he probably should have looked at contingency. I'm pretty sure he didn't expect his dad to die so quickly though.

 

Circumstances have changed and he's announced publicly that the debt would be cleared when he knows the situation which isn't now reliant on one person. It's two different scenarios.

 

And I've not once said the agreement won't go through shareholders but he's obviously got a good understanding of what they will and won't agree to have mentioned it. Once there's something concrete to discuss then that's the time for him to get formal agreements from them.

Edited by irnbru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So apart from that time when he didn't actually understand the views of the shareholders, we should still definitely assume that he's got the green light for this. Despite having received no actual formal commitment from GC to do anything or about their general intentions for the management and ownership of the club going forward. Erm no, that's really not how we should be treating this situation at all. 

 

MCT should absolutely be trying to raise money but its leaders should be far fewer illusions than yourself about how much leverage they're actually going to hold over GC just because Crawford said so.

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So apart from that time when he didn't actually understand the views of the shareholders, we should still definitely assume that he's got the green light for this. Despite having received no actual formal commitment from GC to do anything or about their general intentions for the management and ownership of the club going forward. Erm no, that's really not how we should be treating this situation at all.

 

MCT should absolutely be trying to raise money but its leaders should be far fewer illusions than yourself about how much leverage they're actually going to hold over GC just because Crawford said so.

A director publicly stating something several times is obviously them stating intentions. If the shareholders didn't agree then they'd have said something about it or he'd have stopped saying it.

 

The shareholders now weren't shareholder at the time he talked about the 3 year thing. That's the whole point. Things have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had one majority shareholder when he had the three year plan so he didn't really have to although he probably should have looked at contingency. I'm pretty sure he didn't expect his dad to die so quickly though.

 

Circumstances have changed and he's announced publicly that the debt would be cleared when he knows the situation which isn't now reliant on one person. It's two different scenarios.

 

And I've not once said the agreement won't go through shareholders but he's obviously got a good understanding of what they will and won't agree to have mentioned it. Once there's something concrete to discuss then that's the time for him to get formal agreements from them.

I'm pretty sure anyone who had seen DDFR at Cappielow before he popped his clogs would not have been planning for the next three years! I still struggle with Crawford putting forward a three-year business plan when he must have known his dad's assets would be split between family members - most of whom clearly have no interest in the club. In the circumstances, how much faith should we place on Crawford to deliver on any of his utterings?

Edited by HamCam
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure anyone who had seen DDFR at Cappielow before he popped his clogs would not have been planning for the next three years! I still struggle with Crawford putting forward a three-year business plan when he must have known his dad's assets would be split between family members - most of whom clearly have no interest in the club. In the circumstances, how much faith should we place on Crawford to deliver on any of his utterings?

 

Leaving MCT aside, this is my main issue. As far a I can see, Crawford Rae told people there was a three year plan, which turned out to be (if you believe it was a serious plan to start with) predicated on a guy who was the best part of 90 and in clearly failing health staying alive - there's not really any way it can be spun that makes him look good out of it, it's just a matter of which way you think he looks bad. I'm not convinced that we should be merrily chucking money in and just accepting that Rae knows what he's doing or can be fully trusted, whether it's via MCT or something else.

AWMSC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure anyone who had seen DDFR at Cappielow before he popped his clogs would not have been planning for the next three years! I still struggle with Crawford putting forward a three-year business plan when he must have known his dad's assets would be split between family members - most of whom clearly have no interest in the club. In the circumstances, how much faith should we place on Crawford to deliver on any of his utterings?

I agree it's probably something he should have thought and will know in hindsight but you're never going to think your dad is about to die when he's only just retired. It might have been clear to us but it's a heart ruling head moment that most of us would have. I don't have any real reason to doubt he wasn't genuine about that plan and he said it would be in his father's lifetime so it's obviously something that's blinded him.

 

Circumstances have changed now and there's a bit more certainty with the single point of failure (for want of a better phrase) no longer being there. I don't think he's stupid either so I'm sure he'll have learnt his lesson.

 

If people think he's being dishonest I guess it's up to them but nothing suggests that to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it's probably something he should have thought and will know in hindsight but you're never going to think your dad is about to die when he's only just retired. It might have been clear to us but it's a heart ruling head moment that most of us would have. I don't have any real reason to doubt he wasn't genuine about that plan and he said it would be in his father's lifetime so it's obviously something that's blinded him.

 

Circumstances have changed now and there's a bit more certainty with the single point of failure (for want of a better phrase) no longer being there. I don't think he's stupid either so I'm sure he'll have learnt his lesson.

 

If people think he's being dishonest I guess it's up to them but nothing suggests that to me.

Allowing for the size of the inheritance pot, I have no doubt DDFR would have discussed 'immediate' matters with the family. I suspect, and rightly so, inheritance planning was a priority for the Rae family. Before my dear old mum passed away, she made sure to sit me and my brothers down to make sure we all knew who was to get the 10-year-old TV, DVD of Braveheart, pot plant, fridge magnet, etc.

 

In terms of Crawford, you paint him either as a fool or a disingenuous custodian of Morton. Could it be that at times he had a foot in both camps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He also said that the MCT is 'better' than the SMISA scheme where they bought out the shares from existing shareholders, when the SMISA scheme seemed far more clean-cut and straightforward to be honest.

Bur SMISA own 29% of shares and have legal option to buy the club, MCT get 15% and no cast iron promises

  • Upvote 1
"Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allowing for the size of the inheritance pot, I have no doubt DDFR would have discussed 'immediate' matters with the family. I suspect, and rightly so, inheritance planning was a priority for the Rae family. Before my dear old mum passed away, she made sure to sit me and my brothers down to make sure we all knew who was to get the 10-year-old TV, DVD of Braveheart, pot plant, fridge magnet, etc.

 

In terms of Crawford, you paint him either as a fool or a disingenuous custodian of Morton. Could it be that at times he had a foot in both camps?

 

I had started writing a much bigger post about it, but that's basically it in a nutshell. Like I said, it's just a matter of picking which way you think he looks bad. There's not really any great defence for him, and he shouldn't really be getting a free pass for the mismanagement over the years either - regardless of how much of a control freak Dougie was, Crawford was still a board member, and a prominent one at that. He wasn't an innocent bystander.

AWMSC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really a question of honesty - it's about competence. Promising what it turns out he couldn't deliver is an established trait with Crawford Rae, so the willingness of people to just run with his placating answer at some Q and A as being GC's officially sanctioned stance towards this investment is bizarre. Wishful thinking serves absolutely no-one in this situation and MCT should be prepared for some serious negotiations rather than a preordained deal.

 

A director publicly stating something several times is obviously them stating intentions. If the shareholders didn't agree then they'd have said something about it or he'd have stopped saying it.

 

Why would they do that? Crawford Rae's statements cannot bind their future decisions because Crawford Rae does not control GC. Indeed, he has only said what he would recommend to the GC board if MCT or another investment group came in with a viable proposal. Crawford Rae is free to recommend whatever he likes to them - and then they can reject it outright or (I think more likely) negotiate a different proposal to what he puts forward. Because they are in collective control of GC's business concerns and Crawford Rae is not.

 

I see no logical explanation why GC would choose to keep £2 million and responsibility for running a floundering football club for years, only to agree to magically wiping the former off the books for one-fifth of its value just to plug running costs for two years, no other strings attached. And no amount of Crawford Rae's public statements alone are going to change that. 

Edited by vikingTON

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ leave it to the business experts. You stick to slovak history.

 

^^^ furious that his Frost/Nixon insight on what 'Graham' really thinks convinced absolutely no-one either way

  • Upvote 1

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also said that the MCT is 'better' than the SMISA scheme where they bought out the shares from existing shareholders, when the SMISA scheme seemed far more clean-cut and straightforward to be honest.

 

 

Bur SMISA own 29% of shares and have legal option to buy the club, MCT get 15% and no cast iron promises

 

The point is that with this proposal the money pledged would go directly to the running of the football club in exchange for a stake, rather than buying shares already held by a private owner (as SMISA plans to do from Gordon Scott's holdings). So the money raised goes towards running GMFC rather than straight to someone else's pocket or account book. Given the repeated shortfalls and GC no longer issuing IOUs to cover it, I think that is actually the best possible approach in this case and is the major selling point of this scheme (although the current valuation of the club/size of stake is too generous to GC). 

 

A legal option of ownership shouldn't be a priority right now. MCT will first have to earn enough trust over the next two years if it is to try another pledge drive from 2021 - if that happens then you can begin taking a serious look at what the long-term aims of the organisation ought to be, fan ownership or otherwise. 

Edited by vikingTON

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like yourself and Mr McLennan, you mean?

Certainly not, Paul, no.

 

Im not involved either, but you read the leadership team. There appears to be some credible businessmem within.

 

I just happen to see this as an opportunity. Alright there are things to be ironed out, but its not as bad as folk are making out. Ill gladly take a shot in the dark if thats what you want to label it and pledge some money per month. The small sum we're talking wont make a difference to me.

Edited by TONofmemories

TIME FOR CHANGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://beta.compani...102916/officers

whose a clevur boy then lol an wheres the new ones

hears more

https://beta.compani...ificant-control

edit big jed done it for me lol

You do realise that board members and shareholders are different things though right?

 

Not sure why you're bothered about the GC board members.

Edited by Glasgowguy.90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there not Tax benefits which arise from holding onto the debt? Therefore, it is worth keeping on the book until it stops being beneficial?

 

Could be miles off though, I am no business expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...