The Greenock Morton Thread - It's Better Than Yours

[Dunning1874]

EGM announced by MCT:

Quote

Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting of Morton Club Together Ltd

An extraordinary general meeting of MCT will be held in the Douglas Rae (Hospitality) lounge at Cappielow Park, Sinclair Street, Greenock at 7:00pm on Tuesday 7th June 2022. There will be one item on the agenda:

1) The MCT board seeks permission under Article 4.4 to reduce it’s shareholding to a level below 75% of the total shares in Greenock Morton FC Ltd.

We are seeking permission to sell groups of shares in the club to individuals and companies who have expressed an interest in investing in the club. In doing so, we will maintain majority ownership (our ownership will not drop below 50.1%). In this way, we can secure additional and ongoing funding for the club and for the first team budget.

In an example of this proposal, if an individual or company purchased 5% of the available shares, we would require them to match your MCT contributions. So if MCT continues to contribute around £180,000 per year, the individual or company purchasing that 5% share would be required to contribute £18,000 each year. In the ideal scenario, every £1 each MCT member contributes becomes a £1.80 contribution to the club budget. 

To confirm, we will continue to maintain majority ownership and continue to be a community owned club, owned by you, our MCT members.

We are recommending to the membership that you approve this motion. 

Please sign up here if you're able to attend in person at Cappielow.

If you are unable to attend this meeting in person, please reply to this email to advise us and a Zoom link will be sent to you.

If you wish to vote by proxy due to your unavailability, please reply to this email and let us know your vote be 5pm on Monday 6th June 2022.

Interested to find out what has set this in motion, if there is one particular interested individual or group or if it's just a general decision that this can generate investment for the club in greater sums than MCT Patrons.

In principle I've no objection to it and if this can raise funds for the club that can be used for eg capital expenditure then good. There are questions needing answered though around what level of shareholding we're comfortable with private shareholders building up, do we want to let anyone do this or have MCT members retain a veto over sales to certain individuals or of a certain percentage, and is that very nice sounding proposal about investment being benchmarked against MCT contributions actually enforceable in any way?

Overall I feel positive about it but would want these points addressed at the EGM before voting in favour.

[Morton Supporter]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

EGM announced by MCT:

Interested to find out what has set this in motion, if there is one particular interested individual or group or if it's just a general decision that this can generate investment for the club in greater sums than MCT Patrons.

In principle I've no objection to it and if this can raise funds for the club that can be used for eg capital expenditure then good. There are questions needing answered though around what level of shareholding we're comfortable with private shareholders building up, do we want to let anyone do this or have MCT members retain a veto over sales to certain individuals or of a certain percentage, and is that very nice sounding proposal about investment being benchmarked against MCT contributions actually enforceable in any way?

Overall I feel positive about it but would want these points addressed at the EGM before voting in favour.

Yes, despite the fact it would be good to know specifically why agreement is being sought now, Im inclined to vote in favour because:

- I don’t see the value in a fans group owning >90% of stock. There may be company law provisions that provide benefits to having such a high stake (be good if MCT can make that clear) but otherwise if part of the shares can be sold for the benefit of the club while still retaining a controlling interest then that seems sensible to me; and

- it’s likely (particularly in light of the individuals you can imagine are waiting on this vote being approved) that investors will want significant representation on the Board but will bring equally significant commercial expertise which is very lacking at Cappielow (as recognised themselves by MCT and compounded by the fact the CEO has just left - I think it’s no coincidence that that post was not re-advertised and that this vote comes in it’s wake, clearly there are plans in the work if this vote goes through).

Saying that, what exactly will the ensuing investment be giving us here? Again MCT should be much clearer on this (the example in the email was both unclear and speculative). If it’s upfront capital for a project(s) that can help us in the long-term (redevelopment anyone?) then, IMO, that’s preferable to ongoing revenue coming into the club that’s largely going into the playing budget.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

We should definitely be looking at partnerships that will bring in investment and that has to be done on the basis of any investor taking a share in the club (and, as indicated, matching the cash input from the supporters on a pro rata basis).

But... we should be asked to vote on a specific proposal -- investor x to take y percent shares on z terms -- rather than a blanket 'in-principle' agreement that the MCT board can reduce the holding to below 75%... or at least the two things should be done at the same time.

Asking people for the in-principle agreement up-front, without any detail of what might be in the pipeline -- and absolute certainty it will be voted on -- will only cause suspicion and uncertainty, which are the last things a fan-ownership organisation needs.*

Spoiler

For a Greenock-based fan-ownership organisation, multiply that by 100...

  

Edited May 20, 2022 by The Ghost of B A R P

[madton]

It was always the concern initially that we couldn't afford to look after ourselves sufficiently and it looks like that has proved to be the case after just 1 year. We just don't have the numbers/patrons to make it work.  MCT are on their knees, and i say that as someone who contributes £500 a year to MCT so we simply need investment to compete in this division and hopefully challenge for the top 4. The Easdales clearly see that and feel its now time to get involved which can only be a good thing in my eyes. These guys have just been announced as being in the top 10 richest in Scotland so if they want to invest, let them, its the only chance we have of being successful. 

I'd much rather they just take complete control now and put their own men in charge, I'm guessing that will happen further down the line anyway.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

20 minutes ago, madton said:

It was always the concern initially that we couldn't afford to look after ourselves sufficiently and it looks like that has proved to be the case after just 1 year. We just don't have the numbers/patrons to make it work.  MCT are on their knees, and i say that as someone who contributes £500 a year to MCT so we simply need investment to compete in this division and hopefully challenge for the top 4. The Easdales clearly see that and feel its now time to get involved which can only be a good thing in my eyes. These guys have just been announced as being in the top 10 richest in Scotland so if they want to invest, let them, its the only chance we have of being successful. 

I'd much rather they just take complete control now and put their own men in charge, I'm guessing that will happen further down the line anyway.

Not for me.

A partnership, with significant supporter control, is the best way to safeguard the club in the longer term.

We might not be able to own all of it and push forward at the same time, but we need to own at least half of it. And we absolutely need to retain ownership of the ground.

(The specific question of whether the Easedales are desirable or appropriate partners is a different one... but again, for the membership to decide.)

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, madton said:

It was always the concern initially that we couldn't afford to look after ourselves sufficiently and it looks like that has proved to be the case after just 1 year. We just don't have the numbers/patrons to make it work.  MCT are on their knees, and i say that as someone who contributes £500 a year to MCT so we simply need investment to compete in this division and hopefully challenge for the top 4. The Easdales clearly see that and feel its now time to get involved which can only be a good thing in my eyes. These guys have just been announced as being in the top 10 richest in Scotland so if they want to invest, let them, its the only chance we have of being successful. 

I'd much rather they just take complete control now and put their own men in charge, I'm guessing that will happen further down the line anyway.

What evidence is there to show that MCT can't make it work? What are the figures for the shortfall that Must Be Made Up By Investment? 

I see no reason why we can't run the club sustainably as a fan-owned enterprise. It does not need one single penny of annual subscription to do so - the club's custodians simply have to match projected income to costs. If that means no new deals for Cameron Blues and Gary Oliver, oh well. I'm sure we can cope. Whether that's the best way of developing the club is another issue entirely, and this is where allowing external investors deserves a fair hearing.

I'm really not sure what it is about the fanbase right now that takes to catastrophising something new every single week; whereas nearly twenty years of Golden Casket's constant antics were treated with near supine indifference. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by vikingTON

[SpoonTon]

1 hour ago, madton said:

It was always the concern initially that we couldn't afford to look after ourselves sufficiently and it looks like that has proved to be the case after just 1 year. We just don't have the numbers/patrons to make it work.  MCT are on their knees, and i say that as someone who contributes £500 a year to MCT so we simply need investment to compete in this division and hopefully challenge for the top 4. The Easdales clearly see that and feel its now time to get involved which can only be a good thing in my eyes. These guys have just been announced as being in the top 10 richest in Scotland so if they want to invest, let them, its the only chance we have of being successful. 

I'd much rather they just take complete control now and put their own men in charge, I'm guessing that will happen further down the line anyway.

It would take an awful lot to convince me that it would be a good idea for them to take control of the club. Their influence at the club is undeniable though, with the farce of our only current signed up first team striker showing the extent of that. 

[madton]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

What evidence is there to show that MCT can't make it work? What are the figures for the shortfall that Must Be Made Up By Investment? 

I see no reason why we can't run the club sustainably as a fan-owned enterprise. It does not need one single penny of annual subscription to do so - the club's custodians simply have to match projected income to costs. If that means no new deals for Cameron Blues and Gary Oliver, oh well. I'm sure we can cope. Whether that's the best way of developing the club is another issue entirely, and this is where allowing external investors deserves a fair hearing.

I'm really not sure what it is about the fanbase right now that takes to catastrophising something new every single week; whereas nearly twenty years of Golden Casket's constant antics were treated with near supine indifference. 

Cause we are skint and seeking external investment in less than a year??

I completely get the point that the club should always be seeking investment anyway and they absolutely should even if we are minted but I've heard from various people we are absolutely skint and not surprised in the slightest that we are seeking help. The emails asking for more,  increased contributions, season tickets pleas every second tweet and budget cuts discussions surely shows you we are struggling.

Don't think its a case of catastrophising anything. Difference with the Rae's was at least we could afford to go 3-400k in debt every season knowing Dougie would cover it. We would even be in debt  during the years when we were averaging 500-1000 more at games than we do now and shifting more season tickets. If we were going into debt during those seasons, how on earth did MCT think we were gonna remain in the black these days?

I admire the guys at MCT for their efforts, I support it financially and will continue to do so , i just think they expected us to get to 1500 odd subscribers by now and a few more 25k club members to have a chance and the numbers haven't really increased the way they had hoped. Its hardly increased since we became fan owned.

Think we can all assume that our budget is one of the lowest in the country for a full time club. Whilst not impossible, it makes it very difficult to be successful and we are more likely to go down than finish top 4 with our current budget IMO. That's even more of an issue with a lot of smaller clubs now having sugar daddy's in charge.

Maybe the Easdale's coming in beside MCT might be enough, I hope it works, but  for me,  I'd rather 2 of the richest men in the country took over and see where they can take us. I've no doubt we would be much better off.

[vikingTON]

27 minutes ago, madton said:

Cause we are skint and seeking external investment in less than a year?? 

There's no evidence that we're 'skint' - any more than your average lower league Scottish club. Why do you assume that we must be to consider the benefit of external investment: how many non skint clubs would turn down a mutually beneficial partnership? 

Quote

I completely get the point that the club should always be seeking investment anyway and they absolutely should even if we are minted but I've heard from various people we are absolutely skint and not surprised in the slightest that we are seeking help. The emails asking for more,  increased contributions, season tickets pleas every second tweet and budget cuts discussions surely shows you we are struggling.

I've heard enough from the people who had Imrie walking out after the last home game of the season to take none of this as evidence, without some hard figures to back it up. You see season ticket pleas - I see 'bog-standard guilt-trip marketing'. It's a ten a penny at this level of the game. 

Quote

Don't think its a case of catastrophising anything. Difference with the Rae's was at least we could afford to go 3-400k in debt every season knowing Dougie would cover it. We would even be in debt  during the years when we were averaging 500-1000 more at games than we do now and shifting more season tickets. If we were going into debt during those seasons, how on earth did MCT think we were gonna remain in the black these days?

Well we couldn't afford to do it. That's why we nearly lost the ground and did lose a substantial amount of property to those hustlers. 

MCT took over with a three year platform with the substantial benefit of the leftover government grants to achieve a break-even status by the end of year 3. Since that point, membership numbers have only gone up rather than down. 

You've jumped to a conclusion that this hasn't worked when the facts still have to be laid out and we're only one year into that timeframe. 

Quote

I admire the guys at MCT for their efforts, I support it financially and will continue to do so , i just think they expected us to get to 1500 odd subscribers by now and a few more 25k club members to have a chance and the numbers haven't really increased the way they had hoped. Its hardly increased since we became fan owned.

That's possible, but that still doesn't account for their break-even plan within 3 years. You cannot sketch that out based on future subscription numbers. 

Quote

Think we can all assume that our budget is one of the lowest in the country for a full time club. Whilst not impossible, it makes it very difficult to be successful and we are more likely to go down than finish top 4 with our current budget IMO. That's even more of an issue with a lot of smaller clubs now having sugar daddy's in charge.

The club that just finished 2nd in the league will almost certainly have had a lower player budget than ourselves though.

So rather than throw away good money after bad on a dung player recruitment model, perhaps we should try being the big fish in the pack for a change and move to a hybrid structure. There's no justification for requiring subbies from the fans to pay for Gary fucking Oliver again. 

It's time to be sustainable and that means working with investors to drag the business into the 21st century first. The playing squad is not the place for capital investment from any source. 

[Colkitto]

I see the Times rich list shows the Easdales have reached £billionaire status. 

Sandy Easdale at every home game and various rumours circulating of a take over . Surely there is some way to tap into this wealth?  

They probably have enough money that could see Morton in the top 4 in the Premiership and playing in Europe and it would literally be a drop in the ocean to them 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Colkitto

[GiGi]

18 minutes ago, Colkitto said:

I see the Times rich list shows the Easdales have reached £billionaire status. 

Sandy Easdale at every home game and various rumours circulating of a take over . Surely there is some way to tap into this wealth?  

They probably have enough money that could see Morton in the top 4 in the Premiership and playing in Europe and it would literally be a drop in the ocean to them 

They already provide the bulk of the club's total sponsorship and have done for a while now. Can't reasonably expect them to just start blowing a fortune like we're a suped up Gretna.

[btb]

Quote

In an example of this proposal, if an individual or company purchased 5% of the available shares, we would require them to match your MCT contributions. So if MCT continues to contribute around £180,000 per year, the individual or company purchasing that 5% share would be required to contribute £18,000 each year. In the ideal scenario, every £1 each MCT member contributes becomes a £1.80 contribution to the club budget. 

Being pernickity but if shareholders match MCT contributions wouldn't every £1 from MCT become £2?

So potential shareholders are gonna be asked to stump up cash for the shares and then a sorta anti-dividend - nice trick if you can pull it off.

Besta luck!

 

[Paisley Ton]

Looks like the £25K special MCT package has not attracted the monies require for Morton to be sustainable, unless we follow the VT model.

The hope of attracting 1,500 MCT members was a non-starter.

While many have bought season tickets and put in £20 a month with current attendance numbers and increasing business cost MCT have realised this project will fail without an injection of cash.

Having beaten the give us your cash drum for the last 12 months I fear we have reached or nearly reached our income peak from MCT members.

Even those from distant shores don't seem to think paying the equivalent weekly match ticket cost for a stream is value for money. I am lost to work out what they think is reasonable. While abroad I found it of great value. Maybe we should have put in place a streaming season ticket package and identified how many would be willing to participate. If income was less than our operating costs it should have been dumped, as they there is no such thing as a free meal. 

The real question is where do we want to exist and what level of competion should we be achieving.

I get the feeling that staying in the Championship and competing for playoff places definitely needs additional cash injection. 

The question is are the Easdale's the best, possibly only, investor choice? Sadly it looks like if we don't want to again be fighting for 7th/8th spot we urgently need to find money.

I have no problem with board positions as I don't like wearing a blazers.  

So lets see the detail before the proposed meeting. Any security over the ground or assets ( with the exception of Gary's O's contract) though must be a no.

[GiGi]

 

[Colkitto]

27 minutes ago, GiGi said:

 

Seems to be well rated at Dumbarton winning various PoY awards. Would imagine Dougie knows him well too.

Great name as well so promising start to his Ton career!  

 

[Dunning1874]

I'm happy with that. While signing someone from Dumbarton's 21/22 side might not immediately excite people, we're picking up their best player by a mile who our manager already knows. As signings from relegated League One sides go it's massively more credible than say Kalvin Orsi, who couldn't get a game for relegated Brechin and was released by them the season before Hopkin signed him. That signing (along with Blues and taking McGeever on trial, both of whom were also punted by that Brechin team) massively set alarm bells ringing, whereas this doesn't at all. A gamble on a relatively young player who was a standout in League One is exactly the sort of signing you'd expect us to be making really.

While the words 'utility player' often give people the fear, I'm not concerned by it in this case. He's impressed playing at right back and we were obviously in need of one while our lack of cover, particularly defensively, means we were always going to have sign some first choice players who are capable of covering elsewhere. I fully expect him to be our first choice right back who only moves elsewhere in an emergency, rather than being a Carlo Monti or Cameron Salkeld type where you still have no idea what their position actually is when we're punting them after two seasons.

[vikingTON]

9 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

I'm happy with that. While signing someone from Dumbarton's 21/22 side might not immediately excite people, we're picking up their best player by a mile who our manager already knows. 

What evidence do you have for this?

[Sortmeout]

On 20/05/2022 at 06:48, Morton Supporter said:

Fellow Morton supporters,

Triggered by watching some travel to southern Spain this week - do you think we will ever see the club play a game outwith Scotland again?

What are our routes to doing this?

a. Finishing sufficiently high in the league (generally 4th - 5th) to qualify for Europe. Not a prospect at all at present, but when the likes of Kilmarnock, Motherwell and even Rose County have achieved this or threatened to, then this shouldn’t be such a remote possibility.

b. Scottish Cup - winners qualify for Europe of course, but I’m not if sure runners-up still take the place of the winner should the winner have qualified by virtue of their league position. If so, chances obviously increase (see Ayr United, QotS & Falkirk as examples of runners-up this millennium l) but in any event, such a run would likely be a once-in-a-lifetime thing for us, and then would be dependent on your opponent in the final.

c. Challenge Cup - Welsh, Irish & English sides not present this past season and unclear if we now return to an all-Scottish tournament permanently. While the number of non-Scottish teams were limited and we never drew one to date, over time the chances are we would have and this would represent our best hope of a competitive game “overseas” at present.

d. Friendly - Long-gone are the days of Morton going abroad for pre-season.  Given this, a very tight budget and a general decrease in pre-season friendlies (in any setting) since the reform of the League Cup, this route is also unlikely though not impossible.

So are we destined to see only matches played within Scotland’s borders, or are you more optimistic that we too will get to experience following our club abroad - even if only at a modest scale?

I would imagine a league fixture against Berwick in the next 5 years would be a better bet than Morton getting to a cup final or finishing high enough up the league. You do know you need to actually finish in the top half of the top division don’t you?

[1320Lichtie]

57 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

I'm happy with that. While signing someone from Dumbarton's 21/22 side might not immediately excite people, we're picking up their best player by a mile who our manager already knows. As signings from relegated League One sides go it's massively more credible than say Kalvin Orsi, who couldn't get a game for relegated Brechin and was released by them the season before Hopkin signed him. That signing (along with Blues and taking McGeever on trial, both of whom were also punted by that Brechin team) massively set alarm bells ringing, whereas this doesn't at all. A gamble on a relatively young player who was a standout in League One is exactly the sort of signing you'd expect us to be making really.

While the words 'utility player' often give people the fear, I'm not concerned by it in this case. He's impressed playing at right back and we were obviously in need of one while our lack of cover, particularly defensively, means we were always going to have sign some first choice players who are capable of covering elsewhere. I fully expect him to be our first choice right back who only moves elsewhere in an emergency, rather than being a Carlo Monti or Cameron Salkeld type where you still have no idea what their position actually is when we're punting them after two seasons.

Played a few times for us, reminded me very much of the guy Ben Stirling who was most recently at Hamilton 

[TONTROOPER]

24 minutes ago, Sortmeout said:

I would imagine a league fixture against Berwick in the next 5 years would be a better bet than Morton getting to a cup final or finishing high enough up the league. You do know you need to actually finish in the top half of the top division don’t you?