Who owns the stadium, how much does it cost us to play there and what happens to the profits?

Creative accounting.

As the value of the estate rises (and it will continue to do so) so shall the potential rent, eventually the club could fold and the stadium & surrounding lands lease be developed or sold on. What I'd like to see is a statement from David Sutherland about his plans for ICT over the next ten years, five years or even five months for that matter.

Please dont hold yer breath, this crowd are not known much for transparency.

Am mesmorised by all these posts , and I fully udnerstand CB's stance, he's between a rock and the proverbial hard place.

This thread is much better than the did he didn't he thread.

Surely it is a matter of public record re' the ownership of the ground. Who are the faceless behind the companies, I guess one is company secretary but who is di Ciacca!!

Do you truly think an investigative journalist would be interested, in this story, what about the local press or are they scared of what they might unearth and lose advertising revenue.

I feel this saga will go on and on until the proverbial hits the fan!!!

Do you truly think an investigative journalist would be interested, in this story, what about the local press or are they scared of what they might unearth and lose advertising revenue.

I get the distinct impression the local press are terrified of upsetting our esteemed major shareholder.

tax dodge? :024:

Do you mean for the marina or for TCS?

We all know what the land in and around the TCS is earmarked for. I personally do not care who owns it, my primary concern is will the OWNERS of the LAND build us a new stadia that satisfies SPL criteria when the time comes to build the Marina!!!!

I would be very grateful if the OWNERS of the land/TCS please answer this one question.

Page 3 of the attached PDF makes interesting reading ..........

longman_draft_db.pdf

Page 3 of the attached PDF makes interesting reading ..........

Just to make sure i'm not mistaken, according to that, TCS is not only a tourist attraction, but a main feature that the area surrounding will be built to compliment?

.... they make it sound like an inconvenience to transport... i.e. things would be made a lot easier if they built a road through it (possibly jumping to conclusions there though)

Page 3 of the attached PDF makes interesting reading ..........

Just to make sure i'm not mistaken, according to that, TCS is not only a tourist attraction, but a main feature that the area surrounding will be built to compliment?

That is indeed the original theory ..... and when DFS invested in the club and ultimately ended up controlling the destiny of the stadium, I think that most fans, myself included, thought:

"ok, this is fine, he is an ICT man, has done a lot for us, and will make sure ICT benefit from all of this development. He will likely make a small fortune himself as he has positioned things so he or his companies can get the building work but thats ok, we dont begrudge him that because he will make sure that ICT are safe and also benefit from it."

The current conspiracy theory that I have heard doing the rounds, and I might add, well before Don raised the ownership issue, but which that issue does nothing to minimise, is centred around the thoery that the TCS occupies a huge footprint within this area and were it to move or cease to exist somehow, the rewards for those involved in any development would increase exponentially.

I dont buy into any particular theory, and I am not saying this is the intention, but an answer to the ownership issue and a clear plan for the future of ICT (similar to our 'road to premier league football') could quite simply quosh this theory and allow us to move on with recovery ......

Page 3 of the attached PDF makes interesting reading ..........

Just to make sure i'm not mistaken, according to that, TCS is not only a tourist attraction, but a main feature that the area surrounding will be built to compliment?

That is indeed the original theory ..... and when DFS invested in the club and ultimately ended up controlling the destiny of the stadium, I think that most fans, myself included, thought:

"ok, this is fine, he is an ICT man, has done a lot for us, and will make sure ICT benefit from all of this development. He will likely make a small fortune himself as he has positioned things so he or his companies can get the building work but thats ok, we dont begrudge him that because he will make sure that ICT are safe and also benefit from it."

The current conspiracy theory that I have heard doing the rounds, and I might add, well before Don raised the ownership issue, but which that issue does nothing to minimise, is centred around the thoery that the TCS occupies a huge footprint within this area and were it to move or cease to exist somehow, the rewards for those involved in any development would increase exponentially.

I dont buy into any particular theory, and I am not saying this is the intention, but an answer to the ownership issue and a clear plan for the future of ICT (similar to our 'road to premier league football') could quite simply quosh this theory and allow us to move on with recovery ......

This would certainly allay some fears, but will it ever happen?-doubt it.

I dont buy into any particular theory, and I am not saying this is the intention, but an answer to the ownership issue and a clear plan for the future of ICT (similar to our 'road to premier league football') could quite simply quosh this theory and allow us to move on with recovery ......

How about "the road back to Highland League football"?

Is Clach Park still up for grabs?

Here are aome 'facts', taken form the official website.

The AGM of the PLC on Friday 25 August saw the unveiling of the Board's revival plan "The Road To Premier League Football". This envisaged the setting up of a Charitable Trust to take ownership of the Stadium and shoulder the debt of ?1.9m. The Football Club would lease the Stadium back, raise cash for football purposes and move on free of debt. Arrangements were put in place and the plan eventually voted through by shareholders on 1 March.

Here are aome 'facts', taken form the official website.

The AGM of the PLC on Friday 25 August saw the unveiling of the Board's revival plan "The Road To Premier League Football". This envisaged the setting up of a Charitable Trust to take ownership of the Stadium and shoulder the debt of ?1.9m. The Football Club would lease the Stadium back, raise cash for football purposes and move on free of debt. Arrangements were put in place and the plan eventually voted through by shareholders on 1 March.

and that is the very nub of the question that is being asked ......

As you mention, The shareholders of the club voted to allow the transfer of the stadium to a CHARITABLE TRUST. However, it is not clear if this is actually what happened and if it did, whether or not this was then subsequently transferred to another company or companies. The waters are all very muddy. The shareholders of the club most definitely DID NOT vote for anything other than a charitable trust.

Some clarification on the matter, to explain the current status and dispel the suggestion of shady dealings is most definitely required.

By the turn of the century Caledonian Thistle, the geographical prefix yet to be added to the team name, had moved rapidly from players playing for beer money in the Highland League to a squad of full time professionals more than holding their own in the First Division. The running costs of the team were almost eight times as much as the joint turnover of Thistle and Caledonian only half a decade before and, although income had, of course increased hugely, the pace of increase was greatly outstripped by the pace of increase of expenditure especially on staff wages. Remember Thistle and Caledonian could only muster one full time employee between them.

The then board under the chairmanship of Doug Mc Gillvary, although presiding over great strides on the park, were steadily running the club into the ground from a fiscal point of view. By 2000 the club were over two million pounds in debt, well over twice the then annual turnover and utterly unsutainable for any commercial entity. Worse, that debt was increasing at the rate of about ?300,000 annually on operating costs alone before any thought could be given to servicing the debt.

I'm in no doubt that without the windfall income from our famous victory over Celtic tin February of that year together with the funds generated by the subsequent match and replay against Aberdeen both shown live on SKY our club would have gone into administration, or possibly worse. The best we could have looked forward to would have been a part time side finding a level towards the top of the Second Division.

However the Scottish Cup windfall proved no more than a short term fix and the club, under the old regime, continued to haemorage money at much the same rate as before. By the time Mr Sutherland stepped in the bank were becoming distinctly hostile and were only placated by Mr Sutherland securing the debt against his own, not inconsiderable, personal wealth.

At that time it seemed to me that there was no other motive other than our rich benefactor securing the short and medium term future of the club.

Shortly after, the notion of the club transferring it's most valuable, or more accurately only, asset to a charitable trust was mooted. he debt was apparently somehow to disappear with the right to the long lease of the stadium. I was in doubt about whether this was a good move for the club as I couldn't quite see how it was all going to work. My own view at the time was that the club would be better off retaining the lease, which due to its very long duration, might be almost as valuable as out and out ownership. It seemed pretty clear that we were occupying a prime waterfront location in what was then the fastest growing city in the United Kingdom. It didn't take a property speculating genius to realise that this land was going to increase in value rapidly and greatly.

Nevertheless, given Mr Sutherland's track record at the time as far as ICT was concerned, I was, like many others I suspect, willing to keep an open mind and was eventually won over by arguments such as the trust, given its charitable status, would have tax and other advantages over a normal commercial organisation.

Since then, there seems to have been a complete dearth of information in the public domaion. That may be due to ligitimate reasons of commercial confidentiality. However what is worrying is what is disclosed by two very salient facts which cannot be kept secret.

The first of these is who the owner of the lease now is. That fact must be in the public domain because, due to the value and duration of the lease the title must be registered in the Land Register of Scotland which is a public register from which it's clear for all prepared to pay a modest search fee to see that the lease of the stadium belongs to a limited company with no reference to the charitable trust the vast majority of us believed would become the new tenants.

The second piece of information again comes from a public register namely; Companies House from which it's clear that there is a substantial connection between that commercial entity and our erstwhile chairman.

There may be some perfectly good reason for Mr Sutherland aquiring the stadium rather the stadium trust but surely if there's nothing sinister the best solution is for Mr Sutherland and the Club to be as candid as possible about the matter comensurate with maintaining any legitimate commercial confidence.

Until then, although perhaps ultimately unfounded, it's only natural for us fans and minor shareholders so far kept in the dark to harbour the sort of suspicions which have been aired on this site and among fans and well wishers of the club generally.

Edited February 3, 201016 yr by Kingsmills

thank you M'Lud ;) Just one minor correction (before Mr Bannerman gets in with it) ... by the turn of the century we were indeed called Inverness Caledonian Thistle, as this was added at the start of season 1996/97.

The rest of your comment pretty much mirrors my understanding of the bill-of-goods we were sold and the shareholders meetings of the time.

thank you M'Lud ;) Just one minor correction (before Mr Bannerman gets in with it) ... by the turn of the century we were indeed called Inverness Caledonian Thistle, as this was added at the start of season 1996/97.

The rest of your comment pretty much mirrors my understanding of the bill-of-goods we were sold and the shareholders meetings of the time.

Thanks for saving me from Mr Bannerman.I better go back and correct the many typos in my hastily drafted post before he picks up on these too !

I'm no expert, as peope say before saying something blindingly obvious or totally stupid, but if the board did not action the transfer as mandated by the shareholders and transferred it somewhere else, then is this not an illegal act?

Any barstool lawyers in tonight?

you mentioned Mr Sutherland AFTER the cup exploits, and imply Doug McGilvray was still at the helm.

I thought DS was already chairman by the time the cup came along?

sorry - not wanting to take this off-topic there, but just wondered if thing maybe started to go down the pan to the end of DMcG rein rather than the start of DS's?

I'm no expert, as peope say before saying something blindingly obvious or totally stupid, but if the board did not action the transfer as mandated by the shareholders and transferred it somewhere else, then is this not an illegal act?

Any barstool lawyers in tonight?

I'm sure that the transfer was sanctioned by the majority shareholders in terms of value. It just didn't deem to be what the majority in terms of numbers expected.

Junior, Doug McGillvray was still charman at the time of our great Parkhead exploit and for some time thereafter.

Edited February 3, 201016 yr by Kingsmills

That was a good summary Mr Mills.

Is it possible that the stadium was initially transferred to the trust, which subsequently sold or transferred it to the commercial entity?

That was a good summary Mr Mills.

Is it possible that the stadium was initially transferred to the trust, which subsequently sold or transferred it to the commercial entity?

Not according to the Land Register.

I'm no expert, as peope say before saying something blindingly obvious or totally stupid, but if the board did not action the transfer as mandated by the shareholders and transferred it somewhere else, then is this not an illegal act?

Any barstool lawyers in tonight?

I'm sure that the transfer was sanctioned by the majority shareholders in terms of value. It just didn't deem to be what the majority in terms of numbers expected.

Junior, Doug McGillvray was still charman at the time of our great Parkhead exploit and for some time thereafter.

Depends which "records" you check. Some even suggest they both held a chairman position at the time....one being "Chairman" the other "Chairman of football"

If you look at the photos for that night at Parkhead you will see DM celebrating with the team on the park ..... DFS was on the scene before the cup game but if memory serves me correctly, they were doing a sort of long handover at the time, dotting all the 'i's and crossing all the 't's etc.

Yup, they were both on the park at the end of that game....I have video evidence ;)

Anyway, getting off topic.