Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Admin

Morton Club Together Updates

Recommended Posts

Obviously we don't know what monthly sum from MCT the board were already factoring into the first team budget for this season, but regardless that is a massive sum of money. Say we're paying players £400 a week (just guessing), that's six players being covered. Imagine the shape we'd be in without that?


Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Oh Lord, Brian Wake

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

Obviously we don't know what monthly sum from MCT the board were already factoring into the first team budget for this season, but regardless that is a massive sum of money. Say we're paying players £400 a week (just guessing), that's six players being covered. Imagine the shape we'd be in without that?

Could argue MCT are covering all the dead wood like Blues, McLean, Millar, Muirhead and Mcginty.... 

Really frustrating that we are paying out wages on players we all know are not good enough knowing it could be spent on 3/4 better players who would actually make a difference. 

Wouldn't surprise me if we go into this season with no right back again whilst being  overloaded with duds elsewhere. 


All in with a Doyle Brunson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Madton said:

Could argue MCT are covering all the dead wood like Blues, McLean, Millar, Muirhead and Mcginty.... 

Really frustrating that we are paying out wages on players we all know are not good enough knowing it could be spent on 3/4 better players who would actually make a difference. 

Wouldn't surprise me if we go into this season with no right back again whilst being  overloaded with duds elsewhere. 

That's a risk no matter where the money is coming from. If you give first team management and/or a Director of Football control over signings, then they need to be given a budget and left to get on with it, barring some limited exceptions (e.g. a bid too good for the club to turn down, or someone who's clearly out of his depth/on his way out trying to sign a full squad.) No manager in the UK worth his salt would accept being told who he can and can't sign and who he can and can't renew by what is at the moment a minor shareholder in the club.

  • Upvote 1

Now before Gavin goes, I'd like to ask him one more question.


Do you like Abba?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s something I think quite a lot of people are going to have to get over, or have misunderstood with the fan ownership model. We have no greater influence on signings than we did before, and it should remain that way. As the above says, the person responsible for it can’t be undermined in any way. Even though we ourselves are putting money in, we’re surrendering any real control over it when we do.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TRVMP said:

That's a risk no matter where the money is coming from. If you give first team management and/or a Director of Football control over signings, then they need to be given a budget and left to get on with it, barring some limited exceptions (e.g. a bid too good for the club to turn down, or someone who's clearly out of his depth/on his way out trying to sign a full squad.) No manager in the UK worth his salt would accept being told who he can and can't sign and who he can and can't renew by what is at the moment a minor shareholder in the club.

Aye it was purely tongue and cheek when i said they are theoretically paying their wages. Think everyone knows MCT can't control that in the slightest.

The frustration lies with Hopkin offering these guys new deals in the 1st place.

  • Upvote 1

All in with a Doyle Brunson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Madton said:

Aye it was purely tongue and cheek when i said they are theoretically paying their wages. Think everyone knows MCT can't control that in the slightest.

The frustration lies with Hopkin offering these guys new deals in the 1st place.

Tongue in cheek or not it is an issue if people perceive their contributions are funding the wages of players not good enough to take the club forward - that is one of the main reasons I have not joined. I, perhaps mistakenly, thought MCT was generating additional funds for 'new' signings not deadwood.I appreciate it is not the role of MCT to interfere in 'football' matters but I see the signings previously mentioned as a waste of funds. I know the manager argues he did not want to start afresh in a truncated season but we all saw enough last season to form the view that a significant number of the squad are miles of the pace.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MCT are funding the first team squad, so players already signed for that squad have to be funded.

They can't pick and choose who receives wages from their donations, in the same way we can't buy a season ticket and say " I don't want X or Y player to get any of MY money" 

IMO the more people who join up, the more money can be donated, therefore a better standard of player can be attracted.

Of course, if that doesn't happen, then theres always the option to resign your membership.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, vikingTON said:

Waves of contradictory pish about whether MCT should or should not meddle in the first team signing policy, a point that is made irrelevant anyway by the fact that the contributions to MCT stand to actually make Morton a fan-owned club in the very near future. Your 'ahm no' gien munny just to pay shite players' hot take is therefore completely out of date - find another shite excuse for not getting on board with the program or better yet don't bother. 

Oh Barbara, you do make me laugh.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Members,

Thank you to all of you who have signed up for Wednesday's AGM.  Those of you who have done so should now have received your link to join the webinar.  If you have not received yours, please let us know.

Registration officially closed at 5pm today, but should anyone else wish to join, we will extend this to 5pm tomorrow.  Please click here to sign up.

Ahead of the AGM, we have also produced a short Annual Report for all of our members. Within the Annual Report, we have also incorporated some reasoning behind each of our recommendations for the AGM. 

You can view this by clicking the button below.

Should anyone have any questions, please feel free to get in touch.

https://mcusercontent.com/bed32e84e49e39393352f8d72/files/d7faa53b-f858-4ce3-a51e-197f74c1956d/MCT_Annual_Report.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the document:

Quote

If the takeover goes through in June 2021, as planned, MCT will be responsible for all running costs at the club. Members’ contributions can then be used to meet costs such as ground maintenance and improvements etc.

I asked back in July about capital improvements. Looks like Golden Casket get to keep an asset on their books and get a bunch of free upgrades. Nice deal for them.


Now before Gavin goes, I'd like to ask him one more question.


Do you like Abba?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worry then is that MCT are already significantly propping up (or probably even paying a majority towards) the budget. Where does the extra cash come from for things like ground improvements?

Where does money come from to pay staff, which i presume we aren't paying atm?

 


TIME FOR CHANGE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devil will be in the detail, but I suppose the trade off for MCT is that GC won’t be charging rent on Morton’s use of Cappielow (beyond a peppercorn rate) and Morton will retain all income eg from renting space to GMCT at a commercial rate or from hospitality. Also, unlike if GC was eg to get ‘free’ upgrades of its factory units from tenants’ money, most improvements to Cappielow will be of limited commercial benefit to GC as they will (most likely) essentially be single use for professional football - I’d guess GC’s commercial interests lie in the land itself rather than what’s on top of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TONofmemories said:

The worry then is that MCT are already significantly propping up (or probably even paying a majority towards) the budget. Where does the extra cash come from for things like ground improvements?

Where does money come from to pay staff, which i presume we aren't paying atm?

 

The normal day to day revenue of the club, exactly as it did before the MCT takeover.

While MCT money isn't going to go entirely to the first team budget once they're in charge, it's not like MCT membership money is the only income into the club. The every day revenue from ticket sales (Covid-19 dependent) and commercial activity - which you'd hope would improve from the farce of the last 20 years with new owners at the top conducting a review of how the club operates - is still going to be there with MCT contributions on top of it. That's exactly what the club has been surviving on as a break even model under Crawford Rae already with Golden Casket not putting anything in so there's no change there.

The balance to find for MCT is obviously how much of member contributions to put into running costs versus building up reserves for unexpected costs arising when you don't have an owner with deep pockets, but the deep pockets were already taken out of the equation two years ago.


Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Oh Lord, Brian Wake

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:

The normal day to day revenue of the club, exactly as it did before the MCT takeover.

While MCT money isn't going to go entirely to the first team budget once they're in charge, it's not like MCT membership money is the only income into the club. The every day revenue from ticket sales (Covid-19 dependent) and commercial activity - which you'd hope would improve from the farce of the last 20 years with new owners at the top conducting a review of how the club operates - is still going to be there with MCT contributions on top of it. That's exactly what the club has been surviving on as a break even model under Crawford Rae already with Golden Casket not putting anything in so there's no change there.

The balance to find for MCT is obviously how much of member contributions to put into running costs versus building up reserves for unexpected costs arising when you don't have an owner with deep pockets, but the deep pockets were already taken out of the equation two years ago.

It isn’t quite accurate that GC are no longer putting anything in so there is still a challenge there. The club has aimed to break even but according to the most recent accounts (despite reporting ‘significant improvement’) still runs at a loss (or at the time of publishing the accounts a loss looked likely), which has been financed by GC. The other important contribution GC makes is financing short term cash flow issues which might arise, for example, if home games are cancelled. The latter is probably the more pressing issue for MCT/Morton post-GC (and in no small part is why GC are holding the stadium - in case cash flow problems become overwhelming and lead to administration).

Edited by cmdc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, cmdc said:

It isn’t quite accurate that GC are no longer putting anything in so there is still a challenge there. The club has aimed to break even but according to the most recent accounts (despite reporting ‘significant improvement’) still runs at a loss (or at the time of publishing the accounts a loss looked likely), which has been financed by GC. The other important contribution GC makes is financing short term cash flow issues which might arise, for example, if home games are cancelled. The latter is probably the more pressing issue for MCT/Morton post-GC (and in no small part is why GC are holding the stadium - in case cash flow problems become overwhelming and lead to administration).

I struggle to think of anyone who would see an outgoing owner of a football club selling the club and retaining it’s only asset for himself as anything other than a negative.

I know he’s your mate, but what he’s doing with Cappielow’s despicable. MCT are effectively buying a brand name, an SFA licence and a league membership, whilst Crawford keeps anything of any value for himself.

If he doesn’t trust MCT to be able to stave off administration, he shouldn’t be selling to them in the first place- that’s how a responsible custodian would approach any such concerns.

The only folk he’s fooling here are the folk who are quite prepared to be fooled. Take the blinkers off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with blinkers - just a clarification that GC still put money in to cover cash flow and losses, because it is often assumed that this is no longer the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cmdc said:

Nothing to do with blinkers - just a clarification that GC still put money in to cover cash flow and losses, because it is often assumed that this is no longer the case.

I don’t think anyone  who has any sort of clue doesn’t realise they’re still plugging the gaps, albeit to a much lesser extent, but that doesn’t mean that Crawford is acting in anything other than his own and his family’s interests, rather than the club he is currently the custodian of, and should have a moral obligation to do.

You’re painting the picture that if Morton go into administration, or worse, the ground won’t be repossessed. My reading of it is that if another buyer for the club was to come in down the line, who may just happen to own a lot of and in the surrounding area, the land that Cappielow currently sits on may all of a sudden become more valuable to that particular buyer than it currently is.

Retaining Cappielow for his own company is about money and power for himself, not for acting in Morton’s interests once he’s out the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not painting that picture - GC and MCT are painting that picture. And, like I said (a) GC's commercial interest will be in the land, and (b) the devil will be in the detail. All I'm really doing here is replying to Dunning: that we aren't starting from a break-even budget, and that unforeseen losses/expenses (like those experienced this year) and cash flow issues (like those experienced, say, over a harsh winter) will contnue to present significant challenges (now more so than ever - as they do to every club at this level) but (as far as I'm aware) without the backstop of a lender of last resort. In that context there is a certain logic to the position GC and MCT have arrived at but we need to see how the agreement takes shape and how Morton's interests are protected within it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cmdc said:

The devil will be in the detail, but I suppose the trade off for MCT is that GC won’t be charging rent on Morton’s use of Cappielow (beyond a peppercorn rate) and Morton will retain all income eg from renting space to GMCT at a commercial rate or from hospitality. Also, unlike if GC was eg to get ‘free’ upgrades of its factory units from tenants’ money, most improvements to Cappielow will be of limited commercial benefit to GC as they will (most likely) essentially be single use for professional football - I’d guess GC’s commercial interests lie in the land itself rather than what’s on top of it.

The usage is secondary to the ownership. The ownership of assets with a new capital value attached to them opens up new lines of finance. Unless there's something in the covenant between MCT and GC to prevent this (and I think such a covenant is unenforcable) there's nothing to stop GC securing credit against upgrades paid for by MCT. Hypothetically, if we ripped down the WDE and built a luxury hotel and spa in its place - something the East End of Greenock is surely crying out for - that asset will belong to GC, even if MCT are responsible for the operating expenses and income. And, as you say, if their commercial interest is in the land, they can secure credit against that tomorrow if they want to, and we have no recourse. I mean, the agreement that Morton will play at Cappielow as long as MCT own the club - that's an agreement between MCT and GC, not between MCT and some hazy notion of Cappielow. If GC have Cappielow foreclosed upon, or just opt to sell it one day (bearing in mind that Crawford won't be around forever, and he's not a dictator today anyway - I don't believe that a rental agreement can preclude sale in perpetuity), then the covenenat just disappears into thin air.

I have no doubt that people at MCT have thought about this and are acting in what they believe to be Morton's best interests (while also being realistic about how much money they have) but at the end of the day we're a few steps away from a very, very precarious position, and while I don't think Crawford is eager to pull the carpet out from under Morton, others in GC's future may well be, or at least forced into the reluctant position of doing so. What safeguards will there be beyond promises?

  • Upvote 2

Now before Gavin goes, I'd like to ask him one more question.


Do you like Abba?

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.