Crawford Rae, Cappielow and MCT - Page 7 - General Morton Chatter - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

Crawford Rae, Cappielow and MCT


Toby

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

I certainly didn't claim it was a 'sure fire' scenario, but it is a possible one we should be aware of and concerned about. Fine for me if you prefer to discount the possibility though. :)

 

4 hours ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

If someone was to speculatively purchase Cappielow and turf GMFC out with the aim of a future sale for profit, the only question would be when not if the land would be eventually redesignated for commercial, industrial and/or residential use. 

If the only question is 'when' not 'if' then the probability the event occurring is by definition 100% - otherwise known as a 'sure-fire scenario'.

Feel free to choose which one of these mutually contradictory posts you want to backpedal on in your own time. 

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

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, HamCam said:

Anything could happen in the future - you might even make an enlightening contribution to this debate 😇.

Not sure what you mean by "into the value" but if it is the number in the accounts the answer is no as this is a cost based figure. If, alternatively, you are talking about fair/market value that, to my knowledge, has not been identified.

Of course anything can happen, but we should be aware of possible scenarios that will develop in the coming years as a result of the proposed MCT-GC relationship.

Whatever the currently market value is, it will be significantly lower than a comparable site that's currently designated for commercial, industrial and/or residential use. 

40 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

 

If the only question is 'when' not 'if' then the probability the event occurring is by definition 100% - otherwise known as a 'sure-fire scenario'.

Feel free to choose which one of these mutually contradictory posts you want to backpedal on in your own time. 

The very big 'ifs' in my scenario are firstly a speculative investor buying the land and turfing GMFC out, and then secondly someone coming in with a proposed development. I never claimed any of these were 'sure fire', but I do believe both are well within the bounds of possibility and are therefore legitimate concerns. 

The one and only 'sure fire' claim I've made was that IF such a scenario as described was to happen, then the council will redesignate the land use if it would bring jobs and/or investment into the town. I'm absolutely convinced about that, and stand by it. 

Happy to help. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Of course anything can happen, but we should be aware of possible scenarios that will develop in the coming years as a result of the proposed MCT-GC relationship.

Whatever the currently market value is, it will be significantly lower than a comparable site that's currently designated for commercial, industrial and/or residential use. 

The very big 'ifs' in my scenario are firstly a speculative investor buying the land and turfing GMFC out, and then someone coming in with a proposed development. I never claimed any of these were 'sure fire', but I do believe both a well within the bounds of possibility and are therefore legitimate concerns. 

The one and only 'sure fire' claim I've made was that IF such a scenario as described was to happen, then the council will redesignate the land use if it would bring jobs and/or investment into the town. I'm absolutely convinced about that, and stand by it. 

Happy to help. :)

Please tell your carer to take your laptop away from you, It appears you are still suffering from all the scary things that happen at Halloween. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HamCam said:

I agree with your first comment but not the second - for almost all uses, the lack of frontage materially impacts on potential use and hence value.

If Cappielow was sold and was going to be developed, Arnold Clark would sell in a minute. 

Their site there is small and they have larger properties a few hundred metres up the road. Cappielow being developed increases the value of AC site and so I'm certain it would be up for grabs. Likely the Norseman building owners would get an offer they couldn't turn down as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, piehutt said:

If Cappielow was sold and was going to be developed, Arnold Clark would sell in a minute. 

Their site there is small and they have larger properties a few hundred metres up the road. Cappielow being developed increases the value of AC site and so I'm certain it would be up for grabs. Likely the Norseman building owners would get an offer they couldn't turn down as well. 

Is if your favourite word? Any outcome is possible but in the real world GMFC still exist, GMFC are playing at Cappielow, the Raes have not put Cappielow up for sale, there is no planning for alternative use, MCT are still in the picture.....

As for your scenario have you ever been involved in a land assembly for redevelopment especially one that does not have any prospect of planning for the foreseeable future, and involved multiple parties including AC. Your suggestion AC "would sell in a minute"  is also not a given - have you ever dealt with AC?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HamCam said:

Is if your favourite word? Any outcome is possible but in the real world GMFC still exist, GMFC are playing at Cappielow, the Raes have not put Cappielow up for sale, there is no planning for alternative use, MCT are still in the picture.....

As for your scenario have you ever been involved in a land assembly for redevelopment especially one that does not have any prospect of planning for the foreseeable future, and involved multiple parties including AC. Your suggestion AC "would sell in a minute"  is also not a given - have you ever dealt with AC?

 

Simply making the point that if MCT walk away because they aren't getting Cappielow for free... then other parties could make Rae an offer and imo, the future of Morton becomes less certain. 

I've not been involved in redevelopment directly, but given that I have eyes I see projects of similar and greater complexity happening all around us. Port Glasgow being a prime example. So to sit behind a laptop and try and pretend that any future development on the site on and around Cappielow is so difficult as to be unimaginable is just not credible. 

No one is saying that Rae has developers knocking down his door but if the MCT deal fell through Rae may well be inclined to look at other options / offers and the club & stadium falls into the control of people that aren't the Rae family or MCT. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, piehutt said:

Simply making the point that if MCT walk away because they aren't getting Cappielow for free... then other parties could make Rae an offer and imo, the future of Morton becomes less certain. 

I've not been involved in redevelopment directly, but given that I have eyes I see projects of similar and greater complexity happening all around us. Port Glasgow being a prime example. So to sit behind a laptop and try and pretend that any future development on the site on and around Cappielow is so difficult as to be unimaginable is just not credible. 

No one is saying that Rae has developers knocking down his door but if the MCT deal fell through Rae may well be inclined to look at other options / offers and the club & stadium falls into the control of people that aren't the Rae family or MCT. 

 

Who said MCT is walking away? As far as I can see the Raes are still very much open to doing a deal with MCT albeit the preference is to retain Cappielow in the family whereas most fans would like MCT to gain control.

Delighted to hear that you have eyes but maybe you need to try learning to read. I never said development was unimaginable, I simply said it was problematic and unlikely to realise the vast piles of cash you are plucking from thin air. Unlike you, I am speaking from experience.

I only want what is best for GMFC but think focusing on the here and now is the priority not what if. A default mode of knicker-wetting achieves nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're getting page after page discussing why Golden Casket won't let Cappielow go because of the potential value to them of a sale of the land, especially in the hypothetical future event that Morton have ceased to exist. Meanwhile, the entire argument being made in favour of Golden Casket retaining Cappielow (in a united front by both MCT & Golden Casket) is that Golden Casket would never sell the stadium off, the lease will be legally watertight to prevent them doing so without MCT's agreement and this arrangement is necessary to safeguard Morton's future, ensuring that any scenario in which we cease to exist doesn't come to pass.

The people making the former argument, saying it's unreasonable to expect the stadium to be included in the transfer of ownership because of the potential income Golden Casket would be depriving themselves of, are therefore making the exact case for why their continued ownership of that land is unacceptable. Your argument supports the exact opposite point of the one you're trying to make.

If this land is a potential goldmine for Golden Casket as the bankruptcy of Morton would allow them to rake it in and it's therefore important for them to retain this potentially extremely profitable asset for that reason, then their ownership of it as a third party would be an unacceptable situation to be in and a genuine existential threat to the club, as that third party would then have a vested interest in Morton's failure. It would prove that the idea their ownership of the stadium is actually designed to protect the club is completely false.

Better then to avoid that situation, by not allowing a third party distinct from the club who could profit from the club's extinction to own it in the first place.

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Brian Wake my Lord, Brian Wake

Oh Lord, Brian Wake

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, HamCam said:

 

I only want what is best for GMFC but think focusing on the here and now is the priority not what if. A default mode of knicker-wetting achieves nothing.

Yeah, we all do, what do you want, a fucking medal? If you equate voicing legitimate concerns as 'knicker wetting' you're every bit as bad as Rangers fans who did nothing and let their club die. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Yeah, we all do, what do you want, a fucking medal? If you equate voicing legitimate concerns as 'knicker wetting' you're every bit as bad as Rangers fans who did nothing and let their club die. 

Best you step back from your laptop and seek help for your paranoia and anger management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No anger here. My love of Morton is dwindling with every year that passes, if Morton died tomorrow I'd be gutted but not devastated, I have far more important things in my life to worry about. But they're still my team and will be till I or they die.

I just happen to believe we may be sleepwalking into a existential crisis by having the indefinite tenancy of our stadium based solely on goodwill of people whose paramount interest is not GMFC. You're obviously a lot more comfortable with that than me, which is fair enough, but dismissing those who have genuine concerns about the direction we're heading in as 'knicker wetters' is just puerile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

No anger here. My love of Morton is dwindling with every year that passes, if Morton died tomorrow I'd be gutted but not devastated, I have far more important things in my life to worry about. But they're still my team and will be till I or they die.

I just happen to believe we may be sleepwalking into a existential crisis by having the indefinite tenancy of our stadium based solely on goodwill of people whose paramount interest is not GMFC. You're obviously a lot more comfortable with that than me, which is fair enough, but dismissing those who have genuine concerns about the direction we're heading in as 'knicker wetters' is just puerile.

I view your response especially the Rangers reference as puerile. I acknowledge the concerns regarding the stadium but I do not believe the intention of MCT is to allow the tenancy of Cappielow to be "based solely on goodwill". Surely we have to allow MCT the opportunity to reach an agreement they can recommend to their members? For now MCT are the only show in town and has been ever since DDFR passed. Rather than speculating on what if, I will leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HamCam said:

I do not believe the intention of MCT is to allow the tenancy of Cappielow to be "based solely on goodwill".

If we're being charged a peppercorn rent then it has to be based solely on goodwill. If GC don't see Cappielow as an asset that they may consider capitalising at some point in the future, why aren't they just handing it over to MCT now? Pretty astonished by your naivety, TBH,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

If we're being charged a peppercorn rent then it has to be based solely on goodwill. If GC don't see Cappielow as an asset that they may consider capitalising at some point in the future, why aren't they just handing it over to MCT now? Pretty astonished by your naivety, TBH,

I know I said I would leave it but what has being charged a peppercorn rent got to do with goodwill? I have read and been involved in a number of 'long' leases involving a peppercorn rent and as long as the tenant performs in accordance with the agreed terms they have security of tenure - they do not need the goodwill of the landlord. The issue is more likely to be if MCT cannot run GMFC as a going concern and/or is in material breach of the lease obligations what happens next? In all likelihood Cappielow would revert to the family and they could then either work to find someone else to take on the club or if not sell the asset without, hopefully, getting the blame for the club's demise.

Is it not best to let MCT see if they can reach agreement before looking for problems that may not exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, HamCam said:

I know I said I would leave it but what has being charged a peppercorn rent got to do with goodwill? 

Because as part of the agreement MCT have to pay for all maintenance, upgrades, etc. They have an asset sitting there costing them absolutely nothing, that they could decide to capitalise at any point on the future if they have cash flow problems. They're holding on to it for a very good reason. 

I ask you again, if GC don't see Cappielow as an asset that they may consider capitalising at some point in the future, why don't they simply hand it over the MCT now?  They're not making any money on it, so what other motivation can they have for holding on to it? If you can give me credible answers to these two questions I'll sleep well tonight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Because as part of the agreement MCT have to pay for all maintenance, upgrades, etc. They have an asset sitting there costing them absolutely nothing, that they could decide to capitalise at any point on the future if they have cash flow problems. They're holding on to it for a very good reason. 

I ask you again, of GC don't see Cappielow as an asset that they may consider capitalising at some point in the future, why don't they simply hand it over the MCT now? 

The value of GC's asset will depend on the terms of any lease (you seem to be assuming you know what the terms will be). If a peppercorn rent is agreed and MCT perform, the value of GC's interest would realistically only amount to hope value - a significant discount from the value if unencumbered. Another if for you - if MCT secure an option to purchase and/or the right to match any competing bid if the family decides to sell there is some security. Goodwill is irrelevant except in the terms the family are willing to sign up to. Those involved in MCT have to be given the space to see if they are in a position to take on GMFC including for an occupational agreement, only after that can we identify the issues, if any.

My take on why the family are simply not handing over Cappielow is because it would hit the balance sheet of GC and because I suspect they believe MCT is doomed to fail. If GMFC falls the family and not the administrator would thereafter benefit from any receipts from the disposal of Cappielow. I know most fans have a negative view on the Raes but I believe they want to give the supporters every chance to make it work without the family having to continue to shore up the annual losses. Ultimately though if it does not work they  (understandably) want to be the beneficiaries over the sale of Cappielow. The family look to be playing the long game.

Could I suggest if you wish to continue this discussion you opt for DM rather than us boring everyone else on the forum going backwards and forwards with our respective positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...