As we all know the board voted four years ago to change the name of the stadium from the Caledonian Stadium to the Tulloch Caledonian Stadium a name very quickly and widely adopted by local and national media affording the Tulloch Group invaluable publicity.

In my opinion that gesture was merited given the contribution that particular construction group had made to the remarkable construction of the North and South Stands allowing SPL football to come to Inverness.

Surely, however, in a strictly commercial sense they have had their money's worth of adverising over the last four years.

The stadium name has an ongoing commercial value even in the current economic climate and the club could certainly do with maximising all sources of revenue.

Is it not now time for the rights to be either renegotiated with Tulloch or offered to any other interested party ?

Let's go back to 2000 when ICT was ?2M in debt and in significant danger of administration or worse. A lot of measures were put in place over the next couple of years, including the ICT Charitable Trust which bought the Stadium and took over the balance of the lease from Highland Council, thus effectively wiping out the potentially fatal debt. The setting up of the Trust was a long and complicated affair, with strict criteria to qualify for charitable status (which included the legal requirement, as a quid pro quo, to assist ALL sport and not just football although I'm not aware of too much of that having happened.)

The Trustees were, and as far as I am aware still are, David Sutherland, David Stewart MP and now MSP and ex Provost Allan Sellar. There had always been some uncertainty as to how ?2M of debt was simply "spirited away" but it has become clear that the Bank of Scotland, with which David Sutherland has strong ties, played the central role in taking up this debt, with Tullochs guaranteeing it in some shape or form.

As a result, Tullochs play a very influential role in the basic stadium ownership and, to face reality, they were the only game in town when ICT was a complete basket case and would probably have gone to the wall without them.

shareholding to exceed around 42% and have never sought to have a controlling interest.

I know Caley D did a lot of research into this a while back but i'm still no clearer on the question of who actually owns the stadium.

Charles, i don't think anybody underestimates the huge contribution that Sutherland and Tullochs have made to the club, but many people are suspicious of his motives, particulary with regard to the stadium.

What does "a very influential role in the basic stadium ownership" mean?

Would Tullochs be entitled to the proceeds of any future stadium sale?

It means that the club and the fans should be indebted and the Muppets feel that they have the rite to walk over everybody and we should never challenge their decisions. Power. If it was down to business I would say fair dos but when it influences the on-pitch affairs they can all get to feck.

If it wasn't for the muppets there may not have been matters on the pitch to worry about. Football fans are fickle and long may they remain so.

One of the stands should be named after Jock MacDonald.

Jock MacDonald, Ross Tokely, Steve Paterson...e.g. any player/manager or someone who has done something big for the club should get a stand named after them.

Stands for me:

Main Stand: Jock MacDonald

North Stand: Ross Tokely/Dennis Wyness (any of them for me)

Away Stand: ????? (not sure)

Thats what i would like to see anyway

Charles, i don't think anybody underestimates the huge contribution that Sutherland and Tullochs have made to the club, but many people are suspicious of his motives, particulary with regard to the stadium.

What does "a very influential role in the basic stadium ownership" mean?

Would Tullochs be entitled to the proceeds of any future stadium sale?

I was not seeking to make any value judgement in what I wrote. The purpose was merely to give a factual account of Tullochs' financial involvement in ICT since the initial link was made.

Edited March 19, 200916 yr by Charles Bannerman

Personally I think that the Home Stand should be renamed the Bridge End. The away end should be renamed after a stalwart of ICT.

Charles, i don't think anybody underestimates the huge contribution that Sutherland and Tullochs have made to the club, but many people are suspicious of his motives, particulary with regard to the stadium.

What does "a very influential role in the basic stadium ownership" mean?

Would Tullochs be entitled to the proceeds of any future stadium sale?

I was not seeking to make any value judgement in what I wrote. The purpose was merely to give a factual account of Tullochs' financial involvement in ICT since the initial link was made.

The problem is Charles....you've not given a "factual account"....far from it. Inverness Caledonian Thistle Trust Ltd (The Charitable Trust) does not hold, and as far as I can ascertain has never owned, the lease and/or properties associated with Tulloch Caledonian Stadium and Inverness Thistle & Caledonian FC Ltd.

If you want to furnish us with evidence to the contrary then I'll happily take a look at it.

The problem is Charles....you've not given a "factual account"....far from it. Inverness Caledonian Thistle Trust Ltd (The Charitable Trust) does not hold, and as far as I can ascertain has never owned, the lease and/or properties associated with Tulloch Caledonian Stadium and Inverness Thistle & Caledonian FC Ltd.

So who does then and under what terms?

Don't be so lazy Charles....you know just as well as I do where you can get that information (aside from it being well documented elsewhere on these forums).

Is this not one of your pet subjects CD?

Don't be so lazy Charles....you know just as well as I do where you can get that information (aside from it being well documented elsewhere on these forums).

Would it not just have been easier to tell me?

Tell me I don't know where to look. :thumb04:

Don't be so lazy Charles....you know just as well as I do where you can get that information (aside from it being well documented elsewhere on these forums).

Would it not just have been easier to tell me?

To be fair to Caley D he has narrated the position in full at least twice before on these fora.

Don't be so lazy Charles....you know just as well as I do where you can get that information (aside from it being well documented elsewhere on these forums).

Would it not just have been easier to tell me?

To be fair to Caley D he has narrated the position in full at least twice before on these fora.

Is this just Kingsmills reminding us that his Classical education in the Victorian pile at the top of Stephen's Brae has afforded him familiarity with the nominative case of a plural neuter Latin noun of the first declension?

Don't be so lazy Charles....you know just as well as I do where you can get that information (aside from it being well documented elsewhere on these forums).

Would it not just have been easier to tell me?

To be fair to Caley D he has narrated the position in full at least twice before on these fora.

Is this just Kingsmills reminding us that his Classical education in the Victorian pile at the top of Stephen's Brae has afforded him familiarity with the nominative case of a plural neuter Latin noun of the first declension?

Having spent the best part of the last two decades residing in rural Aberdeenshire, I diina ken fit you're on aboot !

Don't be so lazy Charles....you know just as well as I do where you can get that information (aside from it being well documented elsewhere on these forums).

Would it not just have been easier to tell me?

To be fair to Caley D he has narrated the position in full at least twice before on these fora.

Is this just Kingsmills reminding us that his Classical education in the Victorian pile at the top of Stephen's Brae has afforded him familiarity with the nominative case of a plural neuter Latin noun of the first declension?

Wibble wibble, indeed sir.

[quote name='Kingsmills'

Is this just Kingsmills reminding us that his Classical education in the Victorian pile at the top of Stephen's Brae has afforded him familiarity with the nominative case of a plural neuter Latin noun of the first declension?

Having spent the best part of the last two decades residing in rural Aberdeenshire, I diina ken fit you're on aboot !

Aye maloon, but ye ken whaur ye went tae the skule tho! Now widdit huv been yon chiel Horne or the loon Ian Thomson that taught ye the Roman mither tongue. Surely no' the quine Jessie Thomson tho' - ye'll be far too young a laddie tae huv been in wan o' hur classes.

Ach weel, as the say in Turriff "Labore et Virtute" an' keep chavvin awa' defendin' a' thae bestiality cases. Whit's yur standard line o' defence onywuy?

"My Lord, my client understood that 'animal husbandry' was a perfectly legal activity." :thumb04:

Edited March 20, 200916 yr by Charles Bannerman

[quote name='Kingsmills'

Is this just Kingsmills reminding us that his Classical education in the Victorian pile at the top of Stephen's Brae has afforded him familiarity with the nominative case of a plural neuter Latin noun of the first declension?

Having spent the best part of the last two decades residing in rural Aberdeenshire, I diina ken fit you're on aboot !

Aye maloon, but ye ken whaur ye went tae the skule tho! Now widdit huv been yon chiel Horne or the loon Ian Thomson that taught ye the Roman mither tongue. Surely no' the quine Jessie Thomson tho' - ye'll be far too young a laddie tae huv been in wan o' hur classes.

Ach weel, as the say in Turriff "Labore et Virtute" an' keep chavvin awa' defendin' a' thae bestiality cases. Whit's yur standard line o' defence onywuy?

"My Lord, my client understood that 'animal husbandry' was a perfectly legal activity." :thumb04:

Coptright theft, as you well know, is a serious matter but, as far as I'm aware, the heirs of the late Granvil Paterson are not known for being particularly litigious ! By the way, the answer to your question is yon loon Ian Thomson.

Edited March 20, 200916 yr by Kingsmills