Howdenender

Board statement 14/08/17

Recommended Posts

Is £228k a year really a lot for what is being paid for. I'd have thought rental rates for a building that size would be significantly more. Or at least they would in Edinburgh. I've not much idea of the current Inverness business rental market. :lol:

Maybe this is really why we've been "donated" them. The rates have now more than covered Tullochs costs of building the stands and maintenance. It's essentially paid off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ictchris said:

We paid £228,000 a year to Tulloch?  Goodness me.

Not only that we named the Stadium after him, only one winner there then.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but if it wasn't for Tullochs our club would have gone bust, although they got the advertising providing the deal goes through donating the stands we have done well out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the comment that we have had a number of rich board members who have consistently supported the club even when in seperate factions and with different ideas is very true. 

We have been lucky to have this level of financial commitment spread across a wide group and hopefully now they can work together to get us back in the premiership. 

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, IBM said:

Yes but if it wasn't for Tullochs our club would have gone bust, although they got the advertising providing the deal goes through donating the stands we have done well out of it.

Sorry confused here, If the stands were built for a million as quoted at the time and we have been paying over £200 000 a year for over 12 years that is quite a financial commitment for the club to have to shoulder. No wonder finances have always been tight.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, forresjags said:

Sorry confused here, If the stands were built for a million as quoted at the time and we have been paying over £200 000 a year for over 12 years that is quite a financial commitment for the club to have to shoulder. No wonder finances have always been tight.

What's the source of this figure of £228,000? I'm not querying it, I would just like to know where it originates from. It has relatively recently emerged that Tullochs, as well as the North and South stands, appear to have acquired the entire stadium and possibly the lease from the Common Good Fund as well - in exchange for spiriting away the £2M+ of debt which looked like sinking the club in the early 2000s. It's therefore possible that the sum in question covers rent not only of the North and South stands but also of the main stand and whatever the CGF fund charge in rent for the site. What's not yet clear is who currently holds the lease of the site from the CGF.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard on the grapevine that the Tulloch name will dropped from the stadium in the relatively near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

What's the source of this figure of £228,000? I'm not querying it, I would just like to know where it originates from.

Someone on this thread asserted we paid £19k a month for the stands. Another person multiplied it by 12. 

Evidence? None, that I know of.

Edited by The Long Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a long term agreement of £5K per week plus VAT. Almost identical to the bar bill at the Heathmount.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all the critism of the silence and, worse still, misinformation coming from the club, such a frank statement has to be welcome as, in my view, is the resignation of the current chairman who, in his short tenure, has presided over chaotic administration and communication to such an extent that his position very quickly became untenable. His going is the right thing to do, possibly the only right thing he had done as chairman and his replacement is a first and necessary step to restoring our reputation and credibility.

As for restoring our place in the Premiership, that is going to be a difficult and uphill task given our limited financed but it will be an impossible task without everyone from the boardroom to the dressing room to the stands putting recent differences behind us and now pulling in the same direction.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. We keep hearing on here about various factions and who is at loggerheads with who, etc. I don't know the history of who got the hump with who over what, and I could care less about it, but surely Mr Rae's first job, if there is substance to it, is to knock all this pettifogging on the head and get everybody to pull together.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Long Man said:

Someone on this thread asserted we paid £19k a month for the stands. Another person multiplied it by 12. 

Evidence? None, that I know of.

In that case I should perhaps originally have said "I'm not necessarily querying it"

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this in the P & J Business Magazine, Alan Savage page.

Locally, I am fascinated at what's going on at Inverness Caledonian Thistle.  I think the big question is who actually owns what and - more to the point - who is actually in control down there?  I hear the old guard still seem to be hanging on to the car parks behind the stands - presumably waiting for Waitrose?  Muirfield Mills are now 10 or so in number and they seem to be calling the day-to-day shots.  Let's hope Robbo (John Robertson) gets the support to keep ICT in the Championship as a realistic target for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, IBM said:

I just read this in the P & J Business Magazine, Alan Savage page.

Locally, I am fascinated at what's going on at Inverness Caledonian Thistle.  I think the big question is who actually owns what and - more to the point - who is actually in control down there?  I hear the old guard still seem to be hanging on to the car parks behind the stands - presumably waiting for Waitrose?  Muirfield Mills are now 10 or so in number and they seem to be calling the day-to-day shots.  Let's hope Robbo (John Robertson) gets the support to keep ICT in the Championship as a realistic target for now.

Well, unless he trawls back to something I posted here on CTO about 5 days ago, Alan will need to get a copy of tomorrow's Highland News where I have given updated figures in my Sportsview column.

What it says is that the potentially rival forces at ICT line up as follows (1% is the equivalent of approximately 39,000 shares.):- Muirfield Mills 27%, McGilvray family 12.5%, Alan Savage/Orion 12% (12.8% if you include Graeme Bennett's holding), Supporters' Society 10%, David Sutherland and "associates" approx. 5%, Roddy Ross 4.4%. The rest is made up of around 520 other parties with stakes ranging from holdings in the small five figure range down to 250 (0.0045%!) which is by far the most common holding, reflecting the popular desire of fans at least to have a token say in the club when the first share issue appeared in 1996. This does NOT include the destination(s) of the 500,000 new shares (12.8%) announced recently.

Edited by Charles Bannerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Well, unless he trawls back to something I posted here on CTO about 5 days ago, Alan will need to get a copy of tomorrow's Highland News where I have given updated figures in my Sportsview column.

What it says is that the potentially rival forces at ICT line up as follows (1% is the equivalent of approximately 39,000 shares.):- Muirfield Mills 27%, McGilvray family 12.5%, Alan Savage/Orion 12% (12.8% if you include Graeme Bennett's holding), Supporters' Society 10%, David Sutherland and "associates" approx. 5%, Roddy Ross 4.4%. The rest is made up of around 520 other parties with stakes ranging from holdings in the small five figure range down to 250 (0.0045%!) which is by far the most common holding, reflecting the popular desire of fans at least to have a token say in the club when the first share issue appeared in 1996. This does NOT include the destination(s) of the 500,000 new shares (12.8%) announced recently.

who exactly are the "supporters society" Charles and any idea who holds the 500000 new shares?

Edited by caleyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like you will have to buy the Highland News caleyboy :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, caleyboy said:

who exactly are the "supporters society" Charles and any idea who holds the 500000 new shares?

Caleyboy... these are two very good questions. I believe the "Supporters' Society" may be the generic term, possibly in the Articles of Association, for what currently is, (or more to the point may or may not still be) Caley Jags Together. The Articles provide for this body to have 10% of the total eligible vote in any poll - in other words votes equating to one ninth of the total number of issued, voting shares. That makes them the fourth biggest player in any vote but, as is fairly well known within the club, this body seems to have been anonymous for a very long time, to the extent that a lot of people aren't even clear as to whether it still even exists. I don't think many people would dispute that such a body (or lack of one?) having the capability of exercising such influence is not a good place to be in at all. For a start, who in practice would actually decide how the 10% would be cast in the event of a vote, and how representative would these persons (or person??) be of the parties whose interests they are meant to be serving? You often hear claims that "supporters" should have a board presence. Well if CJT is representative of supporters, they are doing that claim no service at all.

As for the 500,000 new shares, very few people will know and I'm certainly not one of them. Eventually this will presumably come out in the wash in Companies House records, but how many people and who they are anyone's guess. The McGilvrays?, Savco?, Muirfield Mills? I also note than in his PandJ feature quoted elsewhere here, Alan Savage is claiming that the Muirfield Mills syndicate has gone up to 10 people. If that's the case, might this 500,000 represent contributions from new members of MM? What this does do is to make ownership of 12.8% of the club for the moment uncertain. Add that to the anonymity of the controllers of that further 10% and the water remains a little muddied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Caleyboy... these are two very good questions. I believe the "Supporters' Society" may be the generic term, possibly in the Articles of Association, for what currently is, (or more to the point may or may not still be) Caley Jags Together. The Articles provide for this body to have 10% of the total eligible vote in any poll - in other words votes equating to one ninth of the total number of issued, voting shares. That makes them the fourth biggest player in any vote but, as is fairly well known within the club, this body seems to have been anonymous for a very long time, to the extent that a lot of people aren't even clear as to whether it still even exists. I don't think many people would dispute that such a body (or lack of one?) having the capability of exercising such influence is not a good place to be in at all. For a start, who in practice would actually decide how the 10% would be cast in the event of a vote, and how representative would these persons (or person??) be of the parties whose interests they are meant to be serving? You often hear claims that "supporters" should have a board presence. Well if CJT is representative of supporters, they are doing that claim no service at all.

As for the 500,000 new shares, very few people will know and I'm certainly not one of them. Eventually this will presumably come out in the wash in Companies House records, but how many people and who they are anyone's guess. The McGilvrays?, Savco?, Muirfield Mills? I also note than in his PandJ feature quoted elsewhere here, Alan Savage is claiming that the Muirfield Mills syndicate has gone up to 10 people. If that's the case, might this 500,000 represent contributions from new members of MM? What this does do is to make ownership of 12.8% of the club for the moment uncertain. Add that to the anonymity of the controllers of that further 10% and the water remains a little muddied.

Thanks Charles. Not as transparent as we hoped then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

who in practice would actually decide how the 10% would be cast in the event of a vote, and how representative would these persons (or person??) be of the parties whose interests they are meant to be serving?

Shouldn't someone, presumably the Chairman or the club secretary, know who is entitled to vote?  Would be interesting to know who they would recognise as being eligible to cast those 10% of all votes. Wouldn't surprise me if they don't know.

Note that I am NOT criticising any Board or official, past or present, for not knowing.  But if I didn't know, I'd sure as hell be trying to find out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/08/2017 at 6:44 PM, Renegade said:

I've heard on the grapevine that the Tulloch name will dropped from the stadium in the relatively near future.

Whilst it won't raise a fortune, the release of naming rights should generate an annual five figure sum which will go a little way to plugging our current funding gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, caleyboy said:

Thanks Charles. Not as transparent as we hoped then.

I'm not sure. Question number one would be - is there actually going to be some kind of power struggle? Here we seem to have to balance Alan Savage's insistence that there's not with Dougie's very quickly articulated statement about looking for two directors. Then if there is, who lines up with whom? You seem to have a fairly clear insight into how the club has functioned over the years and therefore presumably of who has been on side and also out of sorts with whom since about 2000. It's about as complex as the system of European alliances that preceded World War I. So I suppose that begs the question - is anybody going to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand? :lol:

I think one significant question may be how much of that 500,000 has been taken up by Muirfield Mills and allies? If it's a lot, then that would further strengthen an already relatively solid position. However, the supporters' 10% is also very unclear and, quite frankly, I think it's a disgrace that a significant quota of votes which dates back to the original Thistle and Caledonian joint members' club should now be mired in such uncertainty, apparently under the control of an organisation which, at best, is hopelessly dysfunctional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I'm not sure. Question number one would be - is there actually going to be some kind of power struggle? Here we seem to have to balance Alan Savage's insistence that there's not with Dougie's very quickly articulated statement about looking for two directors. Then if there is, who lines up with whom? You seem to have a fairly clear insight into how the club has functioned over the years and therefore presumably of who has been on side and also out of sorts with whom since about 2000. It's about as complex as the system of European alliances that preceded World War I. So I suppose that begs the question - is anybody going to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand? :lol:

I think one significant question may be how much of that 500,000 has been taken up by Muirfield Mills and allies? If it's a lot, then that would further strengthen an already relatively solid position. However, the supporters' 10% is also very unclear and, quite frankly, I think it's a disgrace that a significant quota of votes which dates back to the original Thistle and Caledonian joint members' club should now be mired in such uncertainty, apparently under the control of an organisation which, at best, is hopelessly dysfunctional.

we can thank Dave the builder for that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it was said at Monday's meeting that the £500000 new investment was from people who were already investors in the club.  No surprise there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, IBM said:

very good to hear. He seems quite a sincere guy. I wonder how long it takes him to let us know who has invested to buy the 500000 shares or is it £500000 and who is involved in the group presently controlling the 10% voting rights, which let's not forget reflects the input from Caledonian and Thistle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.