The Greenock Morton Thread - It's Better Than Yours

[SpoonTon]

1 hour ago, Colkitto said:

My first preference is fan ownership, but not at any price.

 

It looks like the consensus amongst the support so far is NO to the billionaire businessmen the Easdales taking over the club, NO to anonymous investors and NO to an interest free loan.

That would indeed limit our options to a fan owned club. A club with a business model that's already failing.

No significant investment, a club almost certainly looking at part-time football next season no matter what league we're in, a club looking at the seaside leagues leagues with dwindling support which would have a knock on effect to MCT subscriptions and the consequences of that.

Every avenue has an aspect of danger. Where do we go from here?    

The billionaire businessmen who, by virtue of their great generosity, sponsor us to the tune of 0.0007% of their total worth, give us things like bus seats for the dug out, and even give us a star Easdale striker for on the pitch. They have their interests all over the club, but not enough interest (or whatever else) to actually just invest in the club. 

Who's actually saying 'no' in this situation?

[John MacLean]

11 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

How exactly would a private owner taking over and chucking more money at running costs/playing squad, leading to the club building up a private debt to that owner, be more sustainable? That's the definition of unsustainable.

The model of a white knight owner artificially inflating expenditure is essentially dead at Scottish Championship level. Yes, there are still clubs with private owners who, like Douglas Rae with Morton, are willing to throw hundreds of thousands of pounds away through ego, sentimentality or a combination of them. Unlike Douglas Rae with Morton, some of that spending might even go on capital expenditure that leaves the club in a better place and provides a platform for future sustainability, rather than simply spending it on inflated wages for crap players and managers at the bottom of the full-time barrel. Maybe the likes of Queen's Park find themselves levelling off in a better place where the money they're spending on the first team becomes affordable as they've made it to the Premiership, maybe Ayr making revenue generating stadium improvements means income catches up with first team expenditure.

It might work out well for the clubs still under private ownership, it might not and they end up where Morton were less than 18 months ago, with over £2M of debt and no way to pay it off. To find ourselves with a debt free club with the stadium secured out of that was no small feat and it could very easily have ended up with the club homeless or dead. Once you've actually gotten to the place we are, to jump right back into private ownership with the first Angelo Massone figure promising to spend millions because we don't like how much the club can spend without a sugar daddy would be an act of reckless stupidity. We wouldn't be likely to get away with it again.

None of this means MCT are above criticism, doing everything right or that we shouldn't be asking serious questions about what can and should be done better. A whole rewrite of their articles is required for starters, and the transparency hasn't been good enough at any point. It is just extremely tedious that any time anything negative has happened since they took over the club, there has been a kneejerk reaction that the entire concept of fan ownership has to be doomed to fail under any circumstances.

If we don't like how things are going then why can we not talk about how fan ownership should look, how MCT can be improved, what a sustainable Morton looks like, rather than just throwing our hands up and begging for a white knight to ride in and save us with their bottomless pit of money?

So much of this applies to fan owned clubs in general and not just Morton specifically. 

Fan ownership is absolutely the model that clubs should be following, but one of the greatest challenges that fan owned clubs are/will face is when the club is under performing, or perceived to be under performing, on the pitch. 

Then it is seen as a failing of fan ownership that the centre forward can't hit a barn door from 6 yards or that the keeper can't keep weans out a close and the clamour to repeat the mistakes of the past and spend what you can't afford gets louder and louder. 

There should be no ceiling on the ambition of a fan owned club but that ambition has to matched with financial sustainability. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Colkitto said:

I don't know what the answer is 

 

20 hours ago, Colkitto said:

My next reaction is can we not sell the club to the Easdales?

 

14 hours ago, Colkitto said:

I'd go as far as to say without the Easdales businesses sponsorship of Morton we would already be on our knees. 

 

2 hours ago, Colkitto said:

the billionaire businessmen the Easdales taking over the club

Fooling absolutely no-one here I'm afraid. 

[The Ghost of B A R P]

A lot of that statement is actually pretty generic and applies to most clubs who aren’t in a position to rack up and write off losses. It’s even less of a surprise in relation to supporter-owned clubs (as @John MacLean has pointed out). My question for those who’ve gone off the deep-end over it would be: what else did you expect? This is our reality now and there’s a lot of hard graft still ahead to make the supporter-owned model work; declaring it bust at the first bump in the road is madness.

That said, there are specifics in the statement that are legitimate cause for worry:

1. Confirmation that the sponsorship deal trailed at the MCT EGM is not happening. The reason that’s so concerning is that it was made quite clear that maintaining the player budget at last season’s level was facilitated by that deal. Quite apart from the implications for the squad (more below), my view is that the guy who made that statement on the basis that it was a done deal should be reviewing his decision to continue as a board member. Nobody put a gun to his head to say anything at all; and his credibility on any future matters is completely shot.

2. Any talk of loans should be immediately quashed by the MCT membership. As @Dunning1874 and others have said, that’s the route to levels of exposure and uncertainty that would make our current position look positively idyllic. Mortgaging the club piece by piece within twelve months of securing it would be just about the worst thing we could do.  The only ‘borrowing’ Morton should consider is a modest credit facility to meet month-to-month expenses, if necessary (and if any bank will provide it to an organisation effectively without assets). Beyond that, it should be a firm ‘no’ every time it’s raised.

3. Although the budget and the strength of the playing squad don’t mean supporter ownership is suddenly a bust, we need to acknowledge that the medium-term prospects for it depend to some extent on success on the park. Less than a year in to full ownership, we have more MCT subscribers than season-ticket holders, which is a considerable achievement. Maintaining or growing that will be a difficult ask if we’re labouring away at the foot of the table getting beat most weeks. @AsimButtHitsASix gives figures that show the division we’re in is less important to crowds than just winning and playing well; so L1 might not be a disaster, but a long, crap season getting there just when we need momentum to grow and consolidate financially is a real threat (if @Colkitto had restricted himself to making that simple point, he might have avoided some of the legitimate pelters coming his way).

What the statement doesn’t tell us, of course, is what the original, pre-sponsorship budget was and how much room (if any) Imrie still has for manoeuvre. If there’s nothing left, we’re in real trouble. If he’s having to adjust his thinking on the hoof, maybe even still trying to move one or two out before bringing new players in, but there’s still room to improve what we’ve got, then I’ll be less concerned. As @Morton Supporter says, keeping Imrie — which means giving him enough to be at least competitive — seems to me absolutely critical for our short- and medium-term prospects.

A signing in the forward areas before Saturday would look like a big puff of white smoke, but it increasingly looks like we’ll be hanging on until the end of August once again.

[Alibi]

The club has to be run on a break-even basis from now on.  Otherwise the only way to balance the books would be via external investment, which I wouldn't rule out entirely but it has to be above board and transparent - why on earth would anyone want to remain anonymous in these circumstances? - and it would have to be done in such a way that the MCT shareholding was above 50% as a minimum.  however bear in mind that external investment would in essence be a lump sum that, if spent, was then gone, so not something you could repeat year after year.

As far as loans are concerned, the only way that would make any sense at all is if it were for the purposes of increasing income to the point where the amount of the loan could be paid off through the profits from whatever investment was deemed appropriate.  Someone suggested the club should buy the Norseman and something like that might make sense (if it was razed to the ground and a decent premises put in its place) if it were deemed to be capable of making a profit for the club.  A bit of thinking outside the box is needed to develop alternative income streams that can subsidise the team budget.

I see little point in the idea of selling the club to some outside party who may not even be a supporter of the club.  We haven't come this fat just to give up.

[Toby]

2 hours ago, Alibi said:

The club has to be run on a break-even basis from now on.  Otherwise the only way to balance the books would be via external investment, which I wouldn't rule out entirely but it has to be above board and transparent - why on earth would anyone want to remain anonymous in these circumstances? - and it would have to be done in such a way that the MCT shareholding was above 50% as a minimum.  however bear in mind that external investment would in essence be a lump sum that, if spent, was then gone, so not something you could repeat year after year.

As far as loans are concerned, the only way that would make any sense at all is if it were for the purposes of increasing income to the point where the amount of the loan could be paid off through the profits from whatever investment was deemed appropriate.  Someone suggested the club should buy the Norseman and something like that might make sense (if it was razed to the ground and a decent premises put in its place) if it were deemed to be capable of making a profit for the club.  A bit of thinking outside the box is needed to develop alternative income streams that can subsidise the team budget.

I see little point in the idea of selling the club to some outside party who may not even be a supporter of the club.  We haven't come this fat just to give up.

Not necessarily. Remember that if an investor was intent on keeping their level of shareholding they’d have to continuously invest given that MCT’s subscriptions are being invested into the club on a monthly basis and would, through time dilute an external investor’s shareholding.

That said, I agree with the gist of your point. The fact that this investor, whoever it is, pulled out because they wanted to remain anonymous strikes me as a bullet dodged. How anyone could expect those sort of terms for investing in a community run club is a mystery to me.

[1320Lichtie]

8 hours ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

The last 30 years of Morton attendances

92 1,725 T2 7th
93 1,908 T2 6th
94 1,541 T2 11th (relegated)
95 2,092 T3 1st (promoted)
96 4,104 T2 3rd
97 2,787 T2 8th
98 2,617 T2 5th
99 2,266 T2 6th
00 1,348 T2 8th
01 1,290 T2 9th (relegated)
02 1,250 T3 10th (relegated)
03 2,319 T4 1st (promoted)
04 2,966 T3 4th
05 2,683 T3 3rd
06 2,760 T3 2nd
07 2,661 T3 1st (promoted)
08 2,728 T2 8th
09 2,250 T2 6th
10 1,969 T2 8th
11 1,913 T2 7th
12 1,826 T2 8th
13 2,137 T2 2nd
14 2,362 T2 10th (relegated)
15 1,728 T3 1st (promoted)
16 2,731 T2 5th
17 2,362 T2 4th
18 1,986 T2 7th
19 1,943 T2 5th
20 1,607 T2 7th
21 0 (Covid) T2 9th
22 1,603 T2 7th

We can take a lot away from that but the short version is our division doesn't make a huge difference to our attendances. Apart from 1995/96 we generally hover around the 2,000 mark.

In years where we are doing particularly well and/or we have decent travelling supports it goes up (In 1995/96, for example, as well as our best team in a generation, a sell out final day decider, etc Dunfermline, both Dundee clubs, St. Johnstone, St. Mirren, Clydebank and Airdrie were all in the league at the time. All whom would have larger travelling supports than at least half of the clubs in our division now.) Other years it's been high would be the post-administration bounce at the turn of the century (we survived. Rangers died), the push for promotion under Moore and a coupla good years with Duffy (with handy crowds from Sevco and Hibs included). 

In years where we don't do well it drops but not must below 2,000. The Hugh Scott years and subsequent boycott/double relegation are the only times it drops below 1,500 until Covid appears.

Also, worth noting, before 1999 we were part time/hybrid and we were also part time/hybrid 2002-05. Both times when we were getting good crowds. Almost as if the fans don't care if our left back is also waiting tables in an Italian restaurant in Edinburgh (Hiya Mel, hiya pal)

So, although football demographics are changing we can assume, for the next few years at least, even if we do end up hovering around mid-table in the league below we still won't dip below the 1,500 crowd. That puts us (well) ahead of the bigger part-time teams in terms of support like Alloa, Dumbarton, Arbroath, Airdrie, Clyde and puts us on a par with the bottom end of the full-time game like Ayr, Queen of the South, Raith, etc. 

Assuming we do what all clubs should be doing and work within our means based on attendance figures and commercial income that puts us around... bottom end of Championship status. Where we have been for the majority of the last 30 years. 

The idea that relegation, or not having a big financial backer will see us crumble into a shit-heap like Clyde or Airdrie who can never escape the third tier is hand wringing nonsense. Not to "crowd-w**k" or anything but we have a bigger support than the clubs people fear us turning into. With fan ownership it also leaves us in a far safer position should that happen as opposed to an investor getting bored and walking away, dying on us or being a charlatan. The very worst outcome for Morton under this scenario is to be a club going part-time with no real chance of gaining promotion to the top flight. In the last 30 years that's something we've only really challenged for three times anyway. A whole one time more than part-time Arbroath. 

It's one thing not being optimistic about the future but what are the halcyon days we're missing out on?

We’re getting there to be fair. Obviously this division helps. We have been at 15-1700* average in this league. 1200 season tickets 

 

But Morton clearly a reasonably well supported club. Only Dunfermline and Falkirk in the leagues below are better supported. I would put you well ahead of QoTS personally. Think it’s easy to over exaggerate or worry when it’s your club involved and there’s obviously issues there but I think some of the stuff I’ve read on here in recent days seems a bit doomsday’ish. Greenock a big place and Cappielow an interesting unique place to watch football. 

[AsimButtHitsASix]

Just now, 1320Lichtie said:

We’re getting there to be fair. Obviously this division helps. We have been at 15-1700* average in this league. 1200 season tickets 

Not to go off topic but it'll be interesting to see how this pans out long term for Arbroath. It's a similar situation to us in 1995/96. We had part time players, were a fairytale in the papers, crowds and season ticket holders doubled but there was no real long term growth from it. Hugh Scott coming in didn't help obviously. Can't wait to piss on that c**t's grave.

[1320Lichtie]

3 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Not to go off topic but it'll be interesting to see how this pans out long term for Arbroath. It's a similar situation to us in 1995/96. We had part time players, were a fairytale in the papers, crowds and season ticket holders doubled but there was no real long term growth from it. Hugh Scott coming in didn't help obviously. Can't wait to piss on that c**t's grave.

Said it other day in Ayr thread. Obviously sold some halve season tickets last year in that 1200 figure but that figure was good at the start of last season too coming off the back of a 7th placed finish.
 

Most of the new season ticket holders and people at games will be children and their parents. The Community Trust thing in the town started in 2020 and has about a thousand members now I’m told. The football club are in every single school and sports club and that’s the key

 

Get kids into grounds like Gayfield and Cappielow while they’re young and they fkn love it

[AsimButtHitsASix]

We're currently banning U12s from coming into the ground unless accompanied by an adult. 

[Alibi]

4 hours ago, Toby said:

Not necessarily. Remember that if an investor was intent on keeping their level of shareholding they’d have to continuously invest given that MCT’s subscriptions are being invested into the club on a monthly basis and would, through time dilute an external investor’s shareholding.

That said, I agree with the gist of your point. The fact that this investor, whoever it is, pulled out because they wanted to remain anonymous strikes me as a bullet dodged. How anyone could expect those sort of terms for investing in a community run club is a mystery to me.

Aye, I'd half forgotten about that.  Actually on reflection it's almost as if they are leasing shares as they need to keep paying or, if I understand it properly, do they not see their shareholding diluted?  It seems a fairly convoluted scheme.  i need to go back and read through what actually happens and how they exit if they decide to.

If everyone could be persuaded to increase their monthly contribution, that could go a long way to improving the viability of the fan ownership model, but people can't afford to throw a lot more at it.  If they did, and we performed better as a result, it would probably increase the MCT membership as success breeds success.  We need to reach that tipping point.

[vikingTON]

9 hours ago, Alibi said:

If everyone could be persuaded to increase their monthly contribution, that could go a long way to improving the viability of the fan ownership model, but people can't afford to throw a lot more at it.  If they did, and we performed better as a result, it would probably increase the MCT membership as success breeds success.  We need to reach that tipping point.

The viability issue isn't down to MCT funding - we've got more subscribers and overall contribution than anyone could have realistically expected in such a small period of time. Not least given the lack of incentives (other than a permanent early bird price for STs) to do so. 

The viability issue is being caused by a board and a wider mindset surrounding the club that it is still 2002 and so We Must Be A Full Time Club To Show Ambition. But re-signing cheap duds just because they're cheap duds is in fact the opposite of ambition. And they're not even cheap enough to make it worthwhile in financial terms.  

[Alibi]

44 minutes ago, virginton said:

We Must Be A Full Time Club To Show Ambition. But re-signing cheap duds just because they're cheap duds is in fact the opposite of ambition. And they're not even cheap enough to make it worthwhile in financial terms.  

Can't disagree with that.  If players are good enough, they should be in the team whether they're part time or full time.  A hybrid model would probably be a good compromise although it might make training more complicated, but if players are full time they should be able to train in the evenings 2 night as week and they'd have the rest of those day for extra training if they wanted to really go for it.  We can't really afford to pay sufficiently high wages to attract a higher standard of full time player.  I'm not sure how much difference it makes having our current players on a full time basis anyway.  if we ever reach the top division or if we get to a point where we're near the top of the championship every season, there might be a case for completely full time football, but even then it eliminates some decent players who have other jobs.  would anyone with a good day job want to give it up to play football for £300 a week?  I doubt it.

[MORleyTON]

Terrace Podcast preview of the lower league teams is up. Good listen so far, Morton are around 35 mins in. 

Reasonable assessment I would say albeit less than complimentary remarks about Irmie's pics and Easdale.....in general

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6gghsWJ9PwrUyaLGOwBbxQ?si=fm4zpa22RnGvPzq1Oz5v3Q&utm_source=copy-link&t=2188

 

[bobbykdy]

21 hours ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

We're currently banning U12s from coming into the ground unless accompanied by an adult. 

How to drive away the next generation of supporters, eh?

[The Ghost of B A R P]

Movement…

https://www.gmfc.net/kyle-jacobs-joins-fc-edinburgh-on-loan/

[#Gary]

If Edinburgh are covering 100% of his salary that has to give us some room to bring in someone decent. I'd imagine he was near the top end of our payroll given his experience and that he's been club captain.

 

I think he has a role in this squad and is far better than some of the other shit we have in midfield but Dougie clearly doesn't rate him much and so it's the right move in that sense. 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by #Gary

[vikingTON]

There's no way they're covering 100% (otherwise we'd just give him a free transfer) but hopefully whatever portion is enough to get a deal over the line for a striker. We could have been sitting something like £3-400 a week short before this for a decent addition. 

The move also gets his snippy missus out of the picture instead of whining on social media. A good move for all involved really.

[Dunning1874]

If it's a choice between bringing in a striker and/or playmaker or having Jacobs sitting on the bench when Imrie clearly isn't interested in using him, then this is clearly the right call and with Gillespie, Jacobs, Blues, Lyon and King signed up one of those five had to be the one to go to make room.

I still think it would have been useful to have two natural holding midfielders at the club though as we have no alternative to Gillespie, unless King is capable of stepping into the role. We already saw last season that Lyon and Blues as the deepest two doesn't work defensively. With Jacobs, Lyon, King and McGrattan already under contract the budget should have been used more wisely in the summer so we didn't find ourselves having to spend some of our budget paying someone to play for Edinburgh.

Was Imrie already aware he was going to be considering King part of his first team squad or has this only became the case due to the club moving the goalposts of the budget on him? If the former why prioritise the signing of Blues over other areas of the park, when we already had enough bodies in his position and the out of contract player he wanted rid of evidently couldn't be moved on at no cost to the club?

[SpoonTon]

2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

If it's a choice between bringing in a striker and/or playmaker or having Jacobs sitting on the bench when Imrie clearly isn't interested in using him, then this is clearly the right call and with Gillespie, Jacobs, Blues, Lyon and King signed up one of those five had to be the one to go to make room.

I still think it would have been useful to have two natural holding midfielders at the club though as we have no alternative to Gillespie, unless King is capable of stepping into the role. We already saw last season that Lyon and Blues as the deepest two doesn't work defensively. With Jacobs, Lyon, King and McGrattan already under contract the budget should have been used more wisely in the summer so we didn't find ourselves having to spend some of our budget paying someone to play for Edinburgh.

Was Imrie already aware he was going to be considering King part of his first team squad or has this only became the case due to the club moving the goalposts of the budget on him? If the former why prioritise the signing of Blues over other areas of the park, when we already had enough bodies in his position and the out of contract player he wanted rid of evidently couldn't be moved on at no cost to the club?

Because, for Imrie, Blues' signing was the priority. 

Imrie clearly really rates Blues - he's the first pick in midfield. He played as captain a couple of weeks ago. He didn't choose Jacobs and clearly doesn't rate him. That's his call as manager, and he'll be judged on calls like that, but I think he didn't see Jacobs fitting into his vision for the team at all.

That doesn't mean the goalposts haven't been shifted since back when McGrattan and Lyon were given deals, or that Imrie knew he'd get to add so little to the midfield, but the answer to the Blues question is obvious - he's Imrie's priority pick in midfield. Imrie was never going to go with first picks for midfield that weren't his choice, that's why Gillespie and Blues will start whenever available. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by SpoonTon