The Greenock Morton Thread - It's Better Than Yours

[MORleyTON]

4 hours ago, Mr Toon said:

Morton were very prompt in posting about Crawford and Muirhead leaving so I guess that for the moment all else is speculation.

Like everyone else I am keen to have some news about players signing and/or leaving but as always the agents will be spinning and the journalists writing their stories. 

C'est la vie.

Agreed.

This part of the season is tedious and the same journo spiel gets monotonous.... I suppose it wouldn't be as bad if we had pots of money to play with, but here we are.

Positively though, on other matters, the anniversary kit looks great, a little different, but well communicated. Steps are being made behind the scenes at least on comparison with previous years.

[Frosty]

23 hours ago, Branch Ton said:

Sure. That’s why your 2023 accounts show net assets of £62k.  Some war chest that is. You can just about afford to buy our pie kiosk.

Would love to hear your explanation of what relevance the net worth in our balance sheet has to the budget we have to spend on players. I’ll give you a clue - absolutely none. 

[Branch Ton]

2 minutes ago, Frosty said:

Would love to hear your explanation of what relevance the net worth in our balance sheet has to the budget we have to spend on players. I’ll give you a clue - absolutely none. 

Really?  Spend £100k now and you are technically insolvent. 

[Frosty]

55 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

Really?  Spend £100k now and you are technically insolvent. 

Er no. I suspected you didn’t know what you were talking about with your other comment about funding needing to be through the raising of equity otherwise you would be creating a creditor but you’ve now removed any doubt.

The result of any outflows of cash would only impact the balance sheet after any corresponding inflows of cash as dealt with in the cash flow statement so to suggest that spending more than the amount of our current net worth would mean we are technically insolvent is wrong.

[placidcasual]

Morton fans making out that we must be some sort of financial behemoth to outbid them for players.

 

Know your place, wee guys.

[Branch Ton]

14 hours ago, Frosty said:

Er no. I suspected you didn’t know what you were talking about with your other comment about funding needing to be through the raising of equity otherwise you would be creating a creditor but you’ve now removed any doubt.

The result of any outflows of cash would only impact the balance sheet after any corresponding inflows of cash as dealt with in the cash flow statement so to suggest that spending more than the amount of our current net worth would mean we are technically insolvent is wrong.

And in what form does the inflow of cash take if not borrowing? You’re not seriously suggesting you are going to attract more paying punters to serve the dross you let serve up. 

[callum-ayr]

16 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

And in what form does the inflow of cash take if not borrowing? You’re not seriously suggesting you are going to attract more paying punters to serve the dross you let serve up. 

Player fund that fans pay a subscription to, increased hospitality, increased sponsorship, player sales, cup draws etc.  Also, that figure you put up is almost a year out of date now, that was June 2023 and we're nearly at June 2024.

[Broken Algorithms]

23 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

And in what form does the inflow of cash take if not borrowing? You’re not seriously suggesting you are going to attract more paying punters to serve the dross you let serve up. 

That's exactly what has happened with Raith this season. We got rid of a bunch of jobbers last season, saw more of the inflated "McGlynntrest" contracts (including Jamie MacDonald) hit the exit while changing the tone about the club. 

Last season we were the only team on the final day with nothing to play for. This season has been totally different. 

[Frosty]

6 hours ago, Branch Ton said:

And in what form does the inflow of cash take if not borrowing? You’re not seriously suggesting you are going to attract more paying punters to serve the dross you let serve up. 

Any football club that is using borrowing to cover its expenditure won’t be around for very long. In the world of Scottish football expenditure should be funded by income through season tickets/pay at the gate, hospitality, sponsorship, club shop, advertising, lotteries, player funds, tv revenue, prize money, pitch hire etc

I knew the concept of finance might be limited in Greenock but surprised it’s been quite this alien.

[Branch Ton]

56 minutes ago, Frosty said:

Any football club that is using borrowing to cover its expenditure won’t be around for very long. In the world of Scottish football expenditure should be funded by income through season tickets/pay at the gate, hospitality, sponsorship, club shop, advertising, lotteries, player funds, tv revenue, prize money, pitch hire etc

I knew the concept of finance might be limited in Greenock but surprised it’s been quite this alien.

As at June 2023 creditors £575k payable in less than a year, other creditors due after more than a year £559k. Paying them off from the profits of the pie stall are you?

[Coventry Saint]

Spoiler

 

[Frosty]

53 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

As at June 2023 creditors £575k payable in less than a year, other creditors due after more than a year £559k. Paying them off from the profits of the pie stall are you?

Abandoned your ludicrous assertion that expenditure is funded by borrowing I see - very wise.

Unfortunately you seem to have selected another ridiculous hill to die on I’m afraid.

Creditors due after more than a year are long term debts - that’s why they are in that section of the balance sheet - so the pie stall doesn’t need to be raised to pay for them at all at this point. The reality is long term debt tends to be refinanced in most instances although if you’d read the notes to our accounts (Note 7 to make it easy for you) you’d have seen nearly all ours is from our directors and former directors so more than likely to be written off if past performance from these same individuals is followed.

Short term debts tend to be satisfied by short term assets over the course of the period of the accounts - they are revolving assets and liabilities by nature so again unlikely to be much burden if any to the pie stall. You will of course have seen from Note 6 this time that almost half of our short term debts relate to Deferred Income so will be extinguished by the provision of the service they relate to rather than requiring any cash from us.

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about here so suggest you draw a line under this and move on.

[Pie Of The Month]

Tele claiming Strapp's offer was on terms less than last season. Ooft.

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/24325111.lewis-strapp-morton-set-lose-left-back-deal-snub/

[TheGoon]

6 minutes ago, Pie Of The Month said:

Tele claiming Strapp's offer was on terms less than last season. Ooft.

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/24325111.lewis-strapp-morton-set-lose-left-back-deal-snub/

We may have brought him in on an increased wage (out of desperation) and are now correcting that - but while everyone else is having improved offers put to them, you cannot blame him for the telling the club to piss off - even if he’d still (presumably) be one of the highest earners.

[The Ghost of B A R P]

If that's accurate, somebody at Cappielow needs their head looked. If he was worth x in January, he's worth (at least) x now, given his performances since coming back in.

Stinks of assuming a guy wants to play for Morton and will therefore be willing to take less than he could get elsewhere. Ridiculous.

[Branch Ton]

17 hours ago, Frosty said:

Abandoned your ludicrous assertion that expenditure is funded by borrowing I see - very wise.

Unfortunately you seem to have selected another ridiculous hill to die on I’m afraid.

Creditors due after more than a year are long term debts - that’s why they are in that section of the balance sheet - so the pie stall doesn’t need to be raised to pay for them at all at this point. The reality is long term debt tends to be refinanced in most instances although if you’d read the notes to our accounts (Note 7 to make it easy for you) you’d have seen nearly all ours is from our directors and former directors so more than likely to be written off if past performance from these same individuals is followed.

Short term debts tend to be satisfied by short term assets over the course of the period of the accounts - they are revolving assets and liabilities by nature so again unlikely to be much burden if any to the pie stall. You will of course have seen from Note 6 this time that almost half of our short term debts relate to Deferred Income so will be extinguished by the provision of the service they relate to rather than requiring any cash from us.

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about here so suggest you draw a line under this and move on.

Oh dear. You seem to miss more points than Sean McGinty misses tackles. Chucking a few pejorative comments into a jumbled mess of pseudo babble doesn’t make an argument.. Bottom line little Ayr has little  in the way of assets to fund a spending spree.. if you choose to live beyond your means then you are reliant on external benefactors something which always turns to shit at some point down the line. Happy  to accept you fundamentally disagree with all of this so please jog along and cease to stink out this thread,

 

[Cappiecat1.2]

37 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

so please jog along and cease to stink out this thread,

 

That's rich coming from you, everything you post is minging.

[Frosty]

57 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

Oh dear. You seem to miss more points than Sean McGinty misses tackles. Chucking a few pejorative comments into a jumbled mess of pseudo babble doesn’t make an argument.. Bottom line little Ayr has little  in the way of assets to fund a spending spree.. if you choose to live beyond your means then you are reliant on external benefactors something which always turns to shit at some point down the line. Happy  to accept you fundamentally disagree with all of this so please jog along and cease to stink out this thread,

 

I actually don’t disagree with your point about living within your means. My issue is you have read our accounts but you clearly don’t understand them and as a result are making yourself look more than a little foolish. You are at it again with your reference to assets funding a spending spree. Hopefully Mrs Branch Ton deals with all things monetary in your household as I fear emptying a piggy bank is the extent of your financial knowledge.

[Cowshed]

6 hours ago, Pie Of The Month said:

Tele claiming Strapp's offer was on terms less than last season. Ooft.

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/24325111.lewis-strapp-morton-set-lose-left-back-deal-snub/

Dalrada, MCT, all the sponsors, league position money, Scottish cup money, Rangers money, hospitality money the list goes on,

money going to the chairman’s pocket

[Nelson]

4 hours ago, Frosty said:

I actually don’t disagree with your point about living within your means. My issue is you have read our accounts but you clearly don’t understand them and as a result are making yourself look more than a little foolish. You are at it again with your reference to assets funding a spending spree. Hopefully Mrs Branch Ton deals with all things monetary in your household as I fear emptying a piggy bank is the extent of your financial knowledge.

Nonsense.  My house buys me bread and milk all the time.