I see Strathaird Salmon Ltd is on the shareholder list but this company was dissolved in 2022, so just another example of an issue getting to the 100% compliance.

I think you also need to take into account that Ferguson v Kellacher can’t be a like with like comparison in that all of SK’s games have been with a squad that’s been depleted and impoverished by Administration. Fair enough, some of DF’s games were in the championship, but all 23 of SK’s have been under very constrained circumstances.

There are bound to be several who have died, especially since most of these shareholders would have bought their allocation 30 years ago, and many would have been middle aged even then. In theory, the deceased’s Executors obtain Confirmation of the Will (Probate in England) and then distribute the assets in accordance with its provisions. Even that complication would create an extra step in each and every case, and you could also understand that the collation of someone’s assets could very well miss a small holding of shares bought many years previously that no-one knew anything about. This was one of the reasons that I pressed Alan a little on what he stated as an inflexible requirement for the full 100%. Personally, I believe that he will be realistic and settle for something below 100%, which will still be enough to give him complete control, but is understandably stating 100% in order to attract as many as shares as possible.

Well, I've just wasted an hour looking for an answer to this General answer is that if assets are discovered after an estate has been closed, the estate is re-opened and its value recalculated, because there could be tax implications and so on. In this case, though, the asset is valueless, in monetary terms. But I can't see any simple way in which the company (club) can cancel them. Nor do I think that someone could simply write in and say "I'm snorbens' heir - you can have them." As far as I can see, there has to be a properly-authorised legally-recognised personal representative of the deceased before anything at all can be done. OTOH, this must happen all the time, so there must be well-trodden ways of dealing with it. I'm sure that someone here can tell us.

In complete agreement with Scottie's suggestion about some kind of commemorative share or similar. Looking at the number of shareholders shows the goodwill and enthusiasm that was generated all those years ago, despite many of us having divided loyalties about the merger.

Ok, you hooked me one more time and I bite. Kellacher 23 games in league 1. adding 13 CHAMPIONSHIP games to Ferguson to give him 23, well, yet again, comparing apples and oranges. Too boring now. End of dialogue, from me. have a nice day.

I see a few people on there who I know have passed - Big Stew, Johndo, Ian Broadfoot, Bill McAllister to name just a few. As these are not listed as "executors of estate of <name>" how does this get handled?

Championship League 1 League 2

I've seen enough twists and turns in agreements, etc. involving ICTFC over the years to know that anything can happen, and it's best to ensure that everything is watertight and not make assumptions. FWiW, I don't think there will be any insurmountable issue in either the CVA or getting sufficient shares... Assuming Ross Morrison is considered an unsecured creditor, his vote will carry the CVA as the total of all others can't block it. If it's not, then (very sadly) trade creditors will fear backlash from football fans who are not exactly renowned for seeing the picture beyond what's "good" for their club!!! The share thing is fairly straightforward as well. Even if the Supporters Trust don't agree to hand over their shares, then AS only needs 85% of all other shares, and this is achievable. The top 40ish shareholders hold about 90% of the shares! This would carry the 75% required in a vote to remove the voting right from the articles. It's then only a short hop to the 90% needed to kick start the squeeze out and enforce handing over the remainder of shares....if he so desired. In reality, once at 85%, the Supporters Trust's voting rights become meaningless, and it may be good PR not to go after it. I still believe the Supporters Trust need to hold an EGM to allow members their say. I don't expect members would prevent handing over the shares and voting rights if needed, but doing things the wrong way for the right reasons is not acceptable because it erodes the same checks and measures that may be required to prevent people from doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons in future. There may be some alternative routes needed for handing over the football trust shares, but again, there are legitimate ways around that. I'm not a fan of what is being done, or how it is being done, but I see no point in people being deliberately awkward. I don't see enough people with enough shares, and minded to try and prevent it, on the shareholders' list. What's more, any additional time lost or money spent on administrators, solicitors, etc., is only going to hurt the club further going forward. I've attached a shareholders list, with percentages, for anyone interested in poking through it. This is based on the most recently publicly available list of shareholders, so don't come at me with any GDPR nonsense, please! ICTFC Shareholder Anlaysis.pdf

@Gringo vacates the building and almost everyone gets a correct prediction. Were you the Duncan Ferguson of the NAPs this season? Week 29 Mrs Gringo: 300.90 Jodie Carnie: 276.30 Robert: 256.20 CDN Girl: 235.70 TheCaleyOne: 234.50 Scotty: 234.30 SOS: 222.00 MrCaleyjag: 207.80 Caley Canary: 194.30 Caleyjag: 181.200 The Mantis: 143.80 Noho: 131.50 Gringo: 5.00 - Bankrupt 3/13 correct 10/12 correct

Got the email yesterday, form is in the post I assume. Disappointing, but necessary unfortunately. I kinda like the idea that CaleyD had though. Perhaps in future, currently existing shareholders who give up their shares can be given some form of non-voting or commemorative share to signify the 30 years of shareholding. Most of us have them as a sense of belonging or connection to the club rather than for any influence over decisions. The reality is that very few decisions - if any until now - have ever hinged on the voting power of individual small shareholders. A few large shareholders and the board have dictated pretty much every decision overt the last 30 years, both good and bad ...

Got the email yesterday and the formal letter in the post this morning.

Might be sensible and prudent for Billy to remain as a player on the books for next season, despite his stepping up to support Kells with more involvement in the coaching and management side of things.

I’ve not had an email so I expect/hope it’s heading my way via snail mail edit: now I’ve read your attachment properly Charles I can see it’s coming in the post -like being back at school and not reading the question properly

Report in the P&J said he definitely would not be signing for ICT - off to the Lilywhites and I wish him all the best…

Yes, you may keep the certificate of ownership of shares in a liquidated club.

It's going to be a very different squad again next year, regardless of who we keep and who we add to it, in whatever division. I suppose I'll just be happy the club will be there.

Who we can and can't keep will depend firstly on being out of admin and secondly on which division we are in. As stated, MacKinnon is the only player under contract. Bavidge, Brannan, Bray, Ewan, Nolan and Stewart will finish their loans; I'm not sure any of them will be rushing back for another season in League One (let alone League Two) Assuming Kellacher continues as manager, it seems possible - likely? - that Billy Mckay could continue as his assistant, which would seem like a good moment to hang up his boots. He'll be 37 in October. I expect other clubs to be sniffing around Dibaga, Allan and Gilmour; holding on to some or all of them would be a pleasant surprise.

Yes. There’s a reference on the second page of the letter which I didn’t have time screenshot earlier, although the caveat refers only to the CVA.

Does the stock transfer form contain any caveats stating that if Alan Savage doesn't get the required number of shares, and as a result pulls his offer, that the transfer will not be executed?

Depends how admin works out. Let's assume it goes well. We've currently got a small squad, full-time, that's garnered (excluding penalty) enough points to be comfortably in the playoffs. I'm not sure there's many moving to the Championship and part-time probably doesn't appeal. So that leaves Cove and QoS, assuming one of them doesn't get promoted, and presumably Airdrie. Many of those will have a settled squad, so how many of ours will they need, and will they have significantly more money after we solve our financial problems? I can certainly see a turnover but with an enhanced squad and no admin, I see ICT as a desirable place for many footballers. Can't see us losing many to Montrose or Stenny. I think we might be getting players from them.

Maintaining current capacity most definitely isn’t a priority, but saving operating costs most definitely is, so much of the spectator capacity surely needs mothballed? I was never sure why they went, I think initially, to 7200 in 2005 when the SPL had retreated as far as 6000 from their previous nonsensical 10,000. As I recollect, 6000 was only really exceeded during earlier visits of the Old Firm and even these high points dropped away within a few years. I think it was the West Stand that lifted it to 7500.

This, to shareholders, arrived by email at 1300 today. If you have lost your share certificate in the intervening 29 years this, apparently, won’t be a problem.

Yes

I did think this the other day, but aren’t we still only able to sign players under 20?