Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/06/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    It also looks as if Caley D may have reverted to his previous status following his "e*se-licking happy clapper" period.
  2. 2 points
    I'm pretty sure you were at the AGM Charles, so you will know that (albeit quite tacitly) the Chairman acknowledge that after adjustments which will be required during this financial year, the loss from last year will show as being significantly lower than the £422k shown. By my reckoning, it will reduce to somewhere very close to break even by the time you factor in the european money and rent write offs etc which were all earned/agreed during the last financial period. In respect of your comment on reduced spending....where exactly is the evidence of that? The squad size is pretty much the same, staff levels have increased with the addition of a COO (a position that won't have been filled cheaply) and a number of functions previously undertaken on a voluntary basis are now being done by consultants/agencies. The £450k already given is in addition to operational income for the current accounting period and there's strong rumours that a similar amount is required on top of that to see us through the season. So the £450k wasn't to plug any previous hole...and, indeed, the accounts show the club had cash in hand at the end of the 2017 accounting period. You'll not get much argument that the club has operated for a long while with a £200k to £250k annual "hole" that requires some good fortune or generosity to fill. If you use that as a measure of where the club is now, and even if you ignore the rumoured need for additional money, we're already twice as far into the hole than we normally go. For a board who claimed to have a plan that would get the club operating entirely within its own means and who were going to remove this need to "put round the hat"....they don't actually seem to be doing a very good job!!
  3. 1 point
    From what I can see (and it was a cursory glance), the £450,000 of loans were converted to 450,000 shares.
  4. 1 point
    Getting things back on track.... Regardless of who is on the board going forward, an EGM is required to properly elect that board, sort out the rules issue and ensure the organisation is legal and compliant. If those currently claiming entitlement to be on the board believe they are the right people to do that, then they can stand for election along with anyone else who steps forward. Denying the members that right whilst continuing to defiantly operate in abeyance is not only damaging the society, it's damaging individual reputations. An EGM is going to happen, that cannot be prevented. Better for the society though that they call it and it happens in a timely fashion, than cause further delay and damage to the society (and themselves) by dragging it out.
  5. 1 point
    Ummmm.....Sevco just securing lending from a major financial institute by using their car park as security would indicate that you might be a tad out of touch with the current commercial climate.
  6. 1 point
    I think you have created an interface between the hammer and the blunt bit that doesn't go into the wood! The statement implies that the proposal is to gift the buildings etc to the club while Tullochs retain the lease. This would presumably mean that the stadium fabric will be owned by the club but built on land which Tullochs will continue to have an option of leasing until 2093 and they will also retain the lease of the rest of the 12.88 acre site, which clearly includes the car parks. Whilst not presuming to anticipate any action or attitude on Tulloch's part, this does create a theoretical situation where they could potentially divert use of the car parks for development of their own. This in turn would leave the club without car parking, which would have been a major condition of the original 1994 planning agreement. There is a stark bottom line here going back almost two decades. By 2000, the club had built up a £2.3M debt and would very possibly... indeed probably.... have gone out of business but for the intervention of Tullochs who were the only game in town. Five years later they were playing SPL football, debt free, in an SPL compliant stadium in Inverness. Tullochs' various interventions played the overwhelming part in that massive transition so the reality is that people can complain as much as they like, but the FACT (which I state objectively) is that Inverness Caledonian Thistle benefited massively over several years from interventions by Tullochs and would probably not have survived, never mind enjoyed over a decade in the SPL, without them.
  7. 1 point
    The interesting thing in the statement from my perspective was the bit about last year's playing budget being the 3rd highest in the club's history. I had understood from what Kenny had previously said that Foran had been given the same funding as Hughes had, minus the extra Hughes received on the back of the injury crisis. If true, Graham's statement means that either Foran did not receive the same initial budget as Hughes did in his last year, or that Hughes' budget in his final year was cut from the year before. Either way, this means that S_C's point above is even more pertinent because Foran was expected to match Hughes' league position with a reduced budget.
  8. 0 points
    I think that what I was trying to succinctly put across is that we are NOT in current debt - We are NOT in danger of administration or of going burst - BUT we have been saved once again by injections of cash and the political battle is now being waged between Tulloch and the Muirfield Mills NOT Orion and Tulloch - (although I suspect that Orion and Mr Savage have a side issue involvement). The future aint bright but the future aint shitttee either. The concern is that we do not have the spondoolachs to look at any new investment - a 3G pitch would be fantastic but we cant afford the quality players to grace it. Until things change we are stuck in the Championship - at least.