Crawford Rae, Cappielow and MCT

[HamCam 297]

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?

 

[piehutt 25]

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. 

 

[HamCam 297]

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.

[dunning1874 1403]

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.

[Cet Homme Charmant 577]

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. 

[HamCam 297]

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.

[Cet Homme Charmant 577]

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.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Cet Homme Charmant

[HamCam 297]

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.

[Cet Homme Charmant 577]

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,

[HamCam 297]

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?

Edited December 15, 2020 by HamCam

[Cet Homme Charmant 577]

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

Edited December 15, 2020 by Cet Homme Charmant

[HamCam 297]

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.

Edited December 15, 2020 by HamCam

[Cet Homme Charmant 577]

11 minutes ago, HamCam said:

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.

Nah you're OK, no desire to read any more of your happy clapping pish.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Cet Homme Charmant

[HamCam 297]

6 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

Nah you're OK, no desire to read any more of your happy clapping pish.

Happy clapping to knicker wetting just about sums up life as a Morton fan.

[TheGoon 620]

Countless pages of this and still no actual benefits of GC retaining the stadium can be found. Almost like there are none, and it is just as black and white as being a future earner for them.

[Alibi 311]

16 hours ago, HamCam said:

So good you said it twice. I agree it is potentially developable as is but what are the prospects of a Class 4,5 or 6 development up on 'Andy Morrisons' mound.

It was meant to be in stereo...

[piehutt 25]

15 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

 

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.

 

I'm not making that argument. My point is that people are now very opposed to the MCT deal that doesn't include Cappielow staying on the Morton balance sheet. If that is the only deal on the table and people don't support it, it may well collapse.

None of us know the motivations for Rae retaining control of the asset. I don't believe it is financial (i.e. that he hopes to personally benefit from sale or rent in the future).

I agree with HamCam that Rae is potentially protecting Morton from failing under MCT and perhaps vultures circling to take control of the assets. 

It may be Golden Casket writing off £2.6m of debt would have taxation implications. My guess is that the £2.6m has left Golden Casket tax free as loans and if it was written off, the revenue would see it as Rae having effectively taken an income to fund his football club.

Over time as more capital is injected into Morton by MCT, this was being written off via share issues. 

I'm hopeful the terms of the lease will be clearer and will demonstrate that Rae has the best interests of the club in mind and there is nothing to worry about with the current proposal. 

Edited December 16, 2020 by piehutt

[vikingTON 3239]

Why ought it remain "the only deal on the table" now, when GC have mismanaged the club to the point that they need a massive hauner to get the club through the season intact? They're the custodians of the club: if they want to keep their current deal with MCT intact then they should put their hands in their own pockets to cover their self-inflicted losses until they slink out the door. If they want additional investment from fans to cover the gap instead then they need to give something worthwhile in exchange for that. Which brings us nicely back to three fundamental questions that you have repeatedly failed to answer in all your bluster about the ground being flogged down the line:

1) What should be done to resolve the current financial shortfall for the season?

2) Who should cough up any additional money for this?

3) What should they receive in return for that capital investment?

Edited December 16, 2020 by vikingTON

[HamCam 297]

1 hour ago, piehutt said:

I'm not making that argument. My point is that people are now very opposed to the MCT deal that doesn't include Cappielow staying on the Morton balance sheet. If that is the only deal on the table and people don't support it, it may well collapse.

None of us know the motivations for Rae retaining control of the asset. I don't believe it is financial (i.e. that he hopes to personally benefit from sale or rent in the future).

I agree with HamCam that Rae is potentially protecting Morton from failing under MCT and perhaps vultures circling to take control of the assets. 

It may be Golden Casket writing off £2.6m of debt would have taxation implications. My guess is that the £2.6m has left Golden Casket tax free as loans and if it was written off, the revenue would see it as Rae having effectively taken an income to fund his football club.

Over time as more capital is injected into Morton by MCT, this was being written off via share issues. 

I'm hopeful the terms of the lease will be clearer and will demonstrate that Rae has the best interests of the club in mind and there is nothing to worry about with the current proposal. 

I don't think there is any doubt the majority of MCT members would prefer to own Cappielow but if that is not on the table or viable for now they have to consider what terms of occupancy can be agreed. I choose to believe Crawford, on behalf of the family, is seeking to reach an agreement that works for both parties but if MCT fail wants to ensure Cappielow is retained by the family. 

[HamCam 297]

1 hour ago, vikingTON said:

Why ought it remain "the only deal on the table" now, when GC have mismanaged the club to the point that they need a massive hauner to get the club through the season intact? They're the custodians of the club: if they want to keep their current deal with MCT intact then they should put their hands in their own pockets to cover their self-inflicted losses until they slink out the door. If they want additional investment from fans to cover the gap instead then they need to give something worthwhile in exchange for that. Which brings us nicely back to three fundamental questions that you have repeatedly failed to answer in all your bluster about the ground being flogged down the line:

1) What should be done to resolve the current financial shortfall for the season?

2) Who should cough up any additional money for this?

3) What should they receive in return for that capital investment?

Sadly, the Rae family do not share DDFR's passion for the club and in the circumstances they just want out without incurring any further losses. Much as I don't like it I understand their position, I am more disappointed that DDFR did not make the appropriate arrangements to protect the club, as promised. MCT find themselves in an almost impossible position but I believe they have to explore all options before putting a proposal to members on the way forward. Telling the family to do one may be instantly gratifying but ultimately self-defeating. 

[vikingTON 3239]

If they don't want any further losses before leaving then they should revise their existing deal with MCT to reward any additional investment that covers their self-created shortfall this season. Or if they don't want to change the terms then they can stump up the money to cover the season for themselves. 

I'm sure that such great of captains of industry will be aware that a something for nothing bailout is not a credible stance to take with an investment partner. Which is what the fans are now and is exactly why having MCT is a worthwhile exercise, because otherwise we'd still be in 'bring a friend' and buy a £14 calendar territory to get precisely zero leverage of the future of the club. 

Edited December 16, 2020 by vikingTON

[piehutt 25]

44 minutes ago, HamCam said:

Sadly, the Rae family do not share DDFR's passion for the club and in the circumstances they just want out without incurring any further losses. Much as I don't like it I understand their position, I am more disappointed that DDFR did not make the appropriate arrangements to protect the club, as promised. MCT find themselves in an almost impossible position but I believe they have to explore all options before putting a proposal to members on the way forward. Telling the family to do one may be instantly gratifying but ultimately self-defeating. 

 

There were certainly quotes from Dougie after the debt was into the millions that he would never call it in and a plan would be put in place to write it off. Obviously he never got round to it. 

Crawford was using the MCT donations to reduce the debt. I'm guessing this was in the form of a share issue to MCT & GC. 

I think it's no secret that Crawford is fed up being involved in Morton, especially considering he has been heavily involved throughout the Dougie reign and was defacto chairman for years prior to his father's death. 

However I do believe he wants MCT to succeed and see's that as preferable to other options he could use to extract himself from the club.

 

[vikingTON 3239]

3 minutes ago, piehutt said:

 

There were certainly quotes from Dougie after the debt was into the millions that he would never call it in and a plan would be put in place to write it off. Obviously he never got round to it. 

Such an unfortunate oversight for a lifelong businessman to make!

[irnbru 465]

14 hours ago, TheGoon said:

Countless pages of this and still no actual benefits of GC retaining the stadium can be found. Almost like there are none, and it is just as black and white as being a future earner for them.

From what was said at the Q&As, this is how MCT are partially mitigating their management of the club being a failure, i.e. so the stadium doesn't end up in the hands of administrators if their plans aren't sustainable. It's obviously arguable if it's any better in the hands of GC if something like that happens although there's more chance they could make it available to new club owners if it came to it. 

MCT said the terms of the contract are still being worked on so this might include a buy out clause meaning that, similar to the up to two season transition they've agreed, there might be a time based clause when they know how well their plans work (for example the 100k per year savings) where they can take full ownership of the stadium for an agreed fee. 

They obviously aren't going to give full details of negotiations at the moment but would expect to hear something soon. 

GC obviously have a vested interest and will be happy to have property on the balance sheet but my understanding is MCT feel what's happening is acceptable overall (although not perfect) based on risks around their longer term strategy. 

 

[TONofmemories 1572]

What is our debt now, what with crawford writing off x amount after x amount was contributed?