Morton Q+A at The Beacon - Page 2 - General Morton Chatter - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

Morton Q+A at The Beacon


Recommended Posts

You're ever increasingly coming across as trying to justify your own position of not willing to part with £2.50 a week with the constant and needless attacks. No need for it. I've not pledged yet either btw.

 

Indeed. There's any number of valid issues and questions regarding the scheme and even the motivations behind it - not that I think there's any malicious intent, just that a scheme that ultimately props up the negligence of the current owners might not be the best way to go - but constantly having personal pops at the guy behind it is over the line. 

AWMSC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Tbh, i struggle to see a fan solution that doesn't prop up the negligence of our current owners.

 

In principal the idea is fine and to reach a deal in such short notice is excellent work.

 

Aye, I suppose so in the end, but the approach here seems to be "let's help them out" rather than to start addressing any of the extremely serious issues that are in play regarding the Rae/GC ownership.

 

Insofar as topping up the budget goes then that's fine (to an extent - we're being asked to cover for Rae's incompetence (and dishonesty, depending on how you view last season's fiasco)), but in terms of anything else there' huge gaping holes which might become even more difficult to fill because they've not been addressed.

AWMSC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be wrong, but the club hasn't shown any interest in making "New Revenue Streams" for years.

 

i for one am glad that someone has taken on themselves to make sure that we get the funds we need to be competitive on the park while also starting the process the making the club debt free that will make us much more attractive to potential buyers which could result in us being rid of the Raes faster.

 

I don't see why people are so upset about this scheme, no one is forcing you to back it and it does seem to benefit the football club in the long run.

You are wrong to a certain extend. The club has been presented with quite a few ideas on creating new revenue streams. But they all require investment of some sort or another and as we have seen recently Crawford isn't interested in plowing more money into Morton even if it will pay dividends in the long run. 

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong to a certain extend. The club has been presented with quite a few ideas on creating new revenue streams. 

 

Such as?

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

You are wrong to a certain extend. The club has been presented with quite a few ideas on creating new revenue streams. But they all require investment of some sort or another and as we have seen recently Crawford isn't interested in plowing more money into Morton even if it will pay dividends in the long run.

Warren divulge this to you? 😊

TIME FOR CHANGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why all this personal hate towards Graham McLennan? You may not like his idea or whatever, but the personal stuff is wild.

Aye, it's quite pathetic tbh. Hate on the scheme all you want, but the personal attacks are pointless.

You're ever increasingly coming across as trying to justify your own position of not willing to part with £2.50 a week with the constant and needless attacks. No need for it. I've not pledged yet either btw.

 

Funnily enough folks, I don't disagree with any of you - to call the chap concerned "some gormless shit-for-brains individual" is perhaps a bit harsh on him and undeserved - after all, he will most likely be a decent guy who means well whilst the idea itself is still crap, albeit with good intent.

 

However, it begs the question:

 

If 'ivry buddy chips in munny' were a panacea for all of Morton's problems then why wasn't this done 20 year ago?

 

Also,

 

If this wasn't Graham McLellan, who has made himself a local celebrity on the strength of this garbage idea - and was someone like Salty or Dr. Zhivago instead, would any of you be so concerned that I went a bit OTT by calling him "some gormless shit-for-brains individual"? I doubt it very much.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough folks, I don't disagree with any of you - to call the chap concerned "some gormless shit-for-brains individual" is perhaps a bit harsh on him and undeserved - after all, he will most likely be a decent guy who means well whilst the idea itself is still crap, albeit with good intent.

However, it begs the question:

If 'ivry buddy chips in munny' were a panacea for all of Morton's problems then why wasn't this done 20 year ago?

Also,

If this wasn't Graham McLellan, who has made himself a local celebrity on the strength of this garbage idea - and was someone like Salty or Dr. Zhivago instead, would any of you be so concerned that I went a bit OTT by calling him "some gormless shit-for-brains individual"? I doubt it very much.

There is absolutely nothing "garbage" about potentially shedding our club of debt within the next 2 years.

"CORNBEEF IS A BELLEND"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely nothing "garbage" about potentially shedding our club of debt within the next 2 years.

The word 'potentially' implies that there is a possibility that might not happen. It is also dependent on a caveat of a certain amount of money being raised by MCT, which is an amount greater than double the current sum pledged by those who have opted to take part.

This is also contrary to previous statements by DDFR when he was alive saying the debt will be written off and wouldn't be an issue for any future investors. Why is this debt now being passed on to the supporters to be a millstone round their necks?

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this debt now being passed on to the supporters to be a millstone round their necks?

It's not though. The debt is being reduced and shares are being acquired.

The MCT cash is extra money for players over and above our break even budget.

Even if some of the debt is left after 2 years it doesn't pass to the MCT or the fans at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not though. The debt is being reduced and shares are being acquired.

The MCT cash is extra money for players over and above our break even budget.

Even if some of the debt is left after 2 years it doesn't pass to the MCT or the fans at all.

Why isn't the debt not being written off without the caveat of supporters having to raise a certain some of money - £400,000 - first?

 

In fairness to Graham McLennan, he has played a blinder by getting Crawford Rae to transfer over a 15% shareholding before any funds from pledgers have materialised.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think hes out to make himself a local celebrity either. He has done remarkably well given the time constraints and the general negativity of people towards the idea, which is of course a class Morton trait.

 

No one can do good without folk accusing them of wanting the fame etc.

TIME FOR CHANGE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think hes out to make himself a local celebrity either. He has done remarkably well given the time constraints and the general negativity of people towards the idea, which is of course a class Morton trait.

 

No one can do good without folk accusing them of wanting the fame etc.

Aye, he’s a good guy regardless of what people think of the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, he’s a good guy regardless of what people think of the idea.

I'm not against the principle of a supporters group or individual supporters having a stake in the club. And I don't doubt for a second that he is a decent person, hence the reason why I'll admit I was a bit harsh on him.

Now, I wonder if others out there will admit they are/were a bit harsh on Timmins, Ramsbottom, Van Skaik et others.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really the same thing though, is it? Criticising professional footballers for being guff is completely different to launching personal attacks at someone only trying to help the club and its supporters out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't the debt not being written off without the caveat of supporters having to raise a certain some of money - £400,000 - first?

 

Because the lesser Raes are, depending on how you look at it, either looking out for the best interests of the greater Golden Casket company, its employees, their families, and of course the Raes themselves; or are a bunch of money-grubbing, amoral chancers who didn't wait until the patriarch's body was cold before they started looting his life's work. Much like the Mileson clan, they couldn't wait to get shot of that stupid football club he was always throwing money at.

 

Which of these two is it? Well, it would be imprudent to presume to know, but it's definitely the latter.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is amoral for people with no interest in a football club to steadily disengage with their deceased patriarch's expensive pet project; if they chose to wind the club up then that would be a different matter. But what needs to be recognised by everyone is that the interests of the Rae family are now fundamentally different to those of the club. This plan needs to be start of an effort to prise GC out over the medium term through investment rather than just handing them a short-term hauner and then chucking it. 

 

MCT should be aiming to go from 15 to over 50% of the shareholding over time, so that anyone who wants to take a controlling stake has to put that money straight into the club's coffers instead of a private shareholder's bank account.

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

I don't think it is amoral for people with no interest in a football club to steadily disengage with their deceased patriarch's expensive pet project; if they chose to wind the club up then that would be a different matter. But what needs to be recognised by everyone is that the interests of the Rae family are now fundamentally different to those of the club. This plan needs to be start of an effort to prise GC out over the medium term through investment rather than just handing them a short-term hauner and then chucking it. 

 

MCT should be aiming to go from 15 to over 50% of the shareholding over time, so that anyone who wants to take a controlling stake has to put that money straight into the club's coffers instead of a private shareholder's bank account.

 

Well, that's why it's amoral, not immoral. (And I'd question whether or not it's "steady". It seemed like the rug was pulled out pretty suddenly, in fact.)

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's why it's amoral, not immoral. (And I'd question whether or not it's "steady". It seemed like the rug was pulled out pretty suddenly, in fact.)

 

Selling people on a three year plan then a few months later going "nah, not really" is pretty immoral, I would say. That or grossly incompetent, or perhaps a mix of both.

AWMSC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...