Crawford Rae, Cappielow and MCT

[capitanus]

If I recall correctly the deal between St Mirren and Tesco was one where the supermarket chain got ownership of the Love Street Ground and in return they settled St Mirren's £2million overdraft and built a brand new stadium in nearby brownfield land which was given at no (or low) cost by the local council.  The likelihood is that St Mirren never saw a brass farthing as a result of the deal, let alone £15million.  Anyone who has been to the new St Mirren Park will probably concur that stadium never cost anywhere near £13million to build.

Where Piehutt is getting these £15million figure from is from very poor sources indeed.  Also, the Love Street site has since been redeveloped as a housing estate with 132 new homes for social rent, so not lay empty as he stated too.

ETA: there is also other things to take into account - the Love Street site was in a residential area with HUGE main road frontage on three sides, and also in close proximity to a major airport and within walking distance from the town centre of Scotland's largest town.

 

[Nornirontons]

3 minutes ago, Nornirontons said:

A simpler scenario for GC would be to sell the ground as a going concern not long before a lease cycle comes to an end. They walk away and a new landlord asks MCT goes from peppercorn  to paying the going rate before they flipping it themselves. That more the classic property stuff I see on a daily basis. A quick buck easily gotten 

Property consortiums I hope are notto unknown. You could conceivably have a number of landlords over a period of even 1 lease as they try their hand at making different parts of the land more lucrative to the next until change is granted/sometimes applied and the property changes over and over

As has been said the ground only worth what someone is going to pay but theres alot of smoke and mirrors in what is more in corporate consortiums buying and selling. It could be every 3-5 year with an ever increasing rent bill being added to the club.

I know an irish league club who's ground was bought. 

The relevant single use  stuff we thought we had never rescued the ground...The bulldozer went in and flattened the place. I think were 4 or 5 consortiums in after that and we have an old folks home getting put in it in the future. 20 year of waiting for sheltered housing. Investors do by up this land and still make money.

You look across now you can actually see some of the terracin left which is a sad site!

A situation that frankly must be avoided and covered in the takeover by MCT

 

[piehutt]

10 hours ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

It's exactly the M.O. of speculative property developers.

I was at a Golf Club where Stewart Milne homes at bought a parcel of farmland in 1998 so that they could be the 'preferred bidder' for a part of a golf course. 

The plan being the Golf Club sell 6 holes near the town for development and build a new clubhouse and 6 holes on the far side of the course, and bank a few million into the bargain. 

At the time the farmland was zoned for farming and the golf course was zoned for recreation, possibly green belt. No planning permission had been granted and it certainly wasn't a given that it would be.

Stewart Milne bought the farmland and still own it and there has still been no houses built. 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

1 hour ago, piehutt said:

I was at a Golf Club where Stewart Milne homes at bought a parcel of farmland in 1998 so that they could be the 'preferred bidder' for a part of a golf course. 

The plan being the Golf Club sell 6 holes near the town for development and build a new clubhouse and 6 holes on the far side of the course, and bank a few million into the bargain. 

At the time the farmland was zoned for farming and the golf course was zoned for recreation, possibly green belt. No planning permission had been granted and it certainly wasn't a given that it would be.

Stewart Milne bought the farmland and still own it and there has still been no houses built. 

A speculative purchase of a rural greenfield site is significantly more risky than an urban brownfield site though. 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. It would be a relatively low risk investment for a potentially significant return.  

[piehutt]

50 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

A speculative purchase of a rural greenfield site is significantly more risky than an urban brownfield site though. 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. It would be a relatively low risk investment for a potentially significant return.  

Agreed. 

Which may be one factor in putting Crawford off selling the whole club with ground until it's clear fan ownership will work. The 1st sign of administration and vultures could circle with a cut price purchase and no intention of saving the club. 

I do wonder about the Easdale's interest in the club and that surely they could have been courted as potential buyers if Rae was so keen to get out. The Easdale's don't strike me as silent partners, so once they started getting involved they surely wanted control. 

They have bought up quite a bit of land around Inverclyde and while I'm sure they did want to own a football club from an interest point of view, there are also a lot of permutations that involve making money from the land, with Morrton playing there, elsewhere or nowhere. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

A speculative purchase of a rural greenfield site is significantly more risky than an urban brownfield site though. 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. It would be a relatively low risk investment for a potentially significant return.  

Care to remind us all how Hugh Scott's low risk speculative attempt to do exactly what you have just described got on? 

It clearly only a question of when, not if he finally yields that megabucks profit. 

[piehutt]

18 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

Care to remind us all how Hugh Scott's low risk speculative attempt to do exactly what you have just described got on? 

It clearly only a question of when, not if he finally yields that megabucks profit. 

Doesn't mean someone won't try the same thing again if they could do a deal with Rae. I believe Scott walked away with £450k from the sale to the Rae's. Possibly also drew out cash and dividends when he was operating, and we were selling the likes of Derek Lilley and playing in front of 3,000 to 4,000. 

The only reason Scott got involved was the land. He had a plan to sell the land for retail and build a new stadium on the car park. Who knows if he ever got permission for the retail what would have happened? Probably we'd have been ground sharing for years and the new stadium never prioritised. 

But things have moved on. Football clubs make less money and land has gone up in value. 

 

 

[vikingTON]

13 minutes ago, piehutt said:

Doesn't mean someone won't try the same thing again if they could do a deal with Rae. 

It does mean that any claim that the land will inevitably be changed over to commercial development so long as an investor wants that outcome is complete and utter bollocks though.

"But things have moved on. Football clubs make less money and land has gone up in value."

Hugh Scott didn't fail in his plan because GMFC was shitting so many gold coins that Cappielow was more valuable operating as a football ground. He failed because of the strong current of opposition to a hostile business action in the local area. That condition has not fundamentally changed at all which is why your market fundamentalist hot take is utter nonsense.

I note that you still haven't responded to the question of what is it to be done about this season's shortfall, in your continued attempt to make it all about the wonderful lease terms we'll be getting from our dear chairman.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

34 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

Care to remind us all how Hugh Scott's low risk speculative attempt to do exactly what you have just described got on? 

It clearly only a question of when, not if he finally yields that megabucks profit. 

The council's decision to designate the Cappielow site for recreational use undoubtedly helped us at that time as it significantly reduced the value of the land and prevented Scott from making a quick killing. I don't claim to be able to read his mind, but with his plan to make a quick and fast profit scuppered I assume he just didn't fancy the long game. Doesn't mean that others wouldn't though.

[vikingTON]

Just now, Cet Homme Charmant said:

The council's decision to designate the Cappielow site for recreational use undoubtedly helped us at that time as it significantly reduced the value of the land and prevented Scott from making a quick killing. I don't claim to be able to read his mind, but with his plan to make a quick and fast profit scuppered I assume he just didn't fancy the long game. Doesn't mean that others wouldn't though.

It does mean that your 'change of use is only a matter of time' argument is bollocks though. As Hugh Scott discovered and as a similar bunch of shysters are finding out to their cost with a much more straightforward flipping the land job across the water, right now.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

3 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

It does mean that your 'change of use is only a matter of time' argument is bollocks though. As Hugh Scott discovered and as a similar bunch of shysters are finding out to their cost with a much more straightforward flipping the land job across the water, right now.

It really doesn't. If the Cappielow site remained derelict for a number of years and a development was proposed that would bring jobs and/or investment to the town, it would be remiss of the Council to reject it, given that the original reason for designating the land as recreational was no longer pertinent. 

[HamCam]

3 hours ago, piehutt said:

I was at a Golf Club where Stewart Milne homes at bought a parcel of farmland in 1998 so that they could be the 'preferred bidder' for a part of a golf course. 

The plan being the Golf Club sell 6 holes near the town for development and build a new clubhouse and 6 holes on the far side of the course, and bank a few million into the bargain. 

At the time the farmland was zoned for farming and the golf course was zoned for recreation, possibly green belt. No planning permission had been granted and it certainly wasn't a given that it would be.

Stewart Milne bought the farmland and still own it and there has still been no houses built. 

Buying a parcel of farmland does not involve a significant outlay. Buying Cappielow without planning is a major punt with the price requiring to reflect the lack of planning and an unknown timescale. I cannot see who would pay a sum anywhere near the historic book value especially if they required bank support for the purchase. 

[piehutt]

59 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

I note that you still haven't responded to the question of what is it to be done about this season's shortfall, in your continued attempt to make it all about the wonderful lease terms we'll be getting from our dear chairman.

What will be done about this season's shortfall? 

Either Rae / GC will plug the gap via a donation or further loan. 

coronavirus bail out

the Fans / MCT will throw a few tenners into a bucket and hopefully will purchase streams / tickets etc. 

The club will basically operate on even more of a shoe string with reduced wages, smaller staff and / or deffered wages. 

The club will have to raise money via commercial lenders

All of the above. 

[piehutt]

2 minutes ago, HamCam said:

Buying a parcel of farmland does not involve a significant outlay. Buying Cappielow without planning is a major punt with the price requiring to reflect the lack of planning and an unknown timescale. I cannot see who would pay a sum anywhere near the historic book value especially if they required bank support for the purchase. 

How do you know what a parcel of farmland is worth? It's worth what 2 parties are prepared to do the deal at. 

I'm just making the point that companies and funds are often involved in the business of speculating over development opportunities and to assume that no one would make the decision that Morton / Cappielow was worth getting hold of with the property being the main consideration is not correct. 

[HamCam]

52 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

It really doesn't. If the Cappielow site remained derelict for a number of years and a development was proposed that would bring jobs and/or investment to the town, it would be remiss of the Council to reject it, given that the original reason for designating the land as recreational was no longer pertinent. 

But that is not the current reality. GMFC exists and has an occupational need to continue to play at the hallowed turf of Cappielow hence any short to medium term pitch at alternative use is doomed to fail. The reality has to be factored into the value.

[piehutt]

Just now, HamCam said:

But that is not the current reality. GMFC exists and has an occupational need to continue to play at the hallowed turf of Cappielow hence any short to medium term pitch at alternative use is doomed to fail. The reality has to be factored into the value.

Of course it will be, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone could put up a Dumbarton style ground at Parklea, or wherever, on rented land and sell / develop the land in Greenock with a few million surplus for 'dividends'. 

Or just sell the car park and keep the stadium in it's current form. 

[HamCam]

2 minutes ago, piehutt said:

How do you know what a parcel of farmland is worth? It's worth what 2 parties are prepared to do the deal at. 

I'm just making the point that companies and funds are often involved in the business of speculating over development opportunities and to assume that no one would make the decision that Morton / Cappielow was worth getting hold of with the property being the main consideration is not correct. 

I don't know what that specific piece of farmland sold for but having spent decades on both sides of the fence in land and property sales, I view your comparison of rural land beside a golf course with Cappielow as having little merit.  I do agree though there are speculators out there who buy up land and property (not many around in the current market) but the price reflects the reality for potential redevelopment - in my opinion no chance the Raes would get anything near to book value.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

It really doesn't. If the Cappielow site remained derelict for a number of years and a development was proposed that would bring jobs and/or investment to the town, it would be remiss of the Council to reject it, given that the original reason for designating the land as recreational was no longer pertinent. 

If the owners of the land were in fact responsible for it being left derelict by kicking out the only show in town to line their investors' pockets then it wouldn't actually be remiss at all: that would simply be the punishment doted out to spiv behaviour. But that's not even remotely where we are and you have set up a hell of a lot of assumptions just to get to that 'sure fire' scenario of yours. 

[HamCam]

2 minutes ago, piehutt said:

Of course it will be, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone could put up a Dumbarton style ground at Parklea, or wherever, on rented land and sell / develop the land in Greenock with a few million surplus for 'dividends'. 

Or just sell the car park and keep the stadium in it's current form. 

Do you have any idea what it costs to buy or rent  a site and build even the most basic shoebox stadium - Cappielow would need to be a seriously prime site to justify such a transaction. I know all Morton fans attach a sentimental value to Cappielow but in property terms it is a secondary site with limited potential, most likely residential.

Selling the car park separately is what I thought was always intended. It is still though not a great site with what looks to be a lot of over-burden and goodness knows what 'hidden' below. Unlike Cappielow this land is identified and zoned for 'business' use.

[vikingTON]

22 minutes ago, piehutt said:

What will be done about this season's shortfall? 

Either Rae / GC will plug the gap via a donation or further loan. 

coronavirus bail out

the Fans / MCT will throw a few tenners into a bucket and hopefully will purchase streams / tickets etc. 

The club will basically operate on even more of a shoe string with reduced wages, smaller staff and / or deffered wages. 

The club will have to raise money via commercial lenders

All of the above. 

The question is about what should be done to resolve the shortfall, not asking you to set out different possibilities. The fact that you keep trying to work your way out of responding to the actual fucking point of thread right now is telling.