Saw this tucked away in the stadium ownership thread and I think it deserves a thread all of its own.

David Sutherland, The Scotsman interview.

Please click, read and comment.

Saw this tucked away in the stadium ownership thread and I think it deserves a thread all of its own.

David Sutherland, The Scotsman interview.

Please click, read and comment.

Interesting, he says he has invested ?5m of his own money with no return! :blah01:

Edited February 8, 201016 yr by caleyboy

Saw this tucked away in the stadium ownership thread and I think it deserves a thread all of its own.

David Sutherland, The Scotsman interview.

Please click, read and comment.

Good read that... Connsidering we were calling for some communication from the board, Sutherland has answered a lot of questions.

From what he says there we have no debt and money in the bank

It's not hard to win you over is it? :blah01:

Saw this tucked away in the stadium ownership thread and I think it deserves a thread all of its own.

David Sutherland, The Scotsman interview.

Please click, read and comment.

Good read that... Connsidering we were calling for some communication from the board, Sutherland has answered a lot of questions.

From what he says there we have no debt and money in the bank

Didn't the end of year finances show a completely different picture though?

It's not hard to win you over is it? :mellow:

:blah01:

Na, not entirely won over but you have to give the man some credit... we asked for a responce and he's given one. There are still a lot of unanswered questions but unless he is bare faced lying (always a possibility)... 2 very important facts to pick out from his statement:

1) There is no debt

2) There is money in the bank

It's not hard to win you over is it? :mellow:

:blah01:

Na, not entirely won over but you have to give the man some credit... we asked for a responce and he's given one. There are still a lot of unanswered questions but unless he is bare faced lying (always a possibility)... 2 very important facts to pick out from his statement:

1) There is no debt

2) There is money in the bank

Yeh

There is no debt because we have no assets

The money in the bank is to pay MK

It's not hard to win you over is it? :mellow:

:blah01:

Na, not entirely won over but you have to give the man some credit... we asked for a responce and he's given one. There are still a lot of unanswered questions but unless he is bare faced lying (always a possibility)... 2 very important facts to pick out from his statement:

1) There is no debt

2) There is money in the bank

Did the financials not show a different story though?

It's not hard to win you over is it? :mellow:

:blah01:

Na, not entirely won over but you have to give the man some credit... we asked for a responce and he's given one. There are still a lot of unanswered questions but unless he is bare faced lying (always a possibility)... 2 very important facts to pick out from his statement:

1) There is no debt

2) There is money in the bank

Did the financials not show a different story though?

I thought the financials showed that although we made a loss, but we are still in the black I believe. I could be totally wrong though.

It's all in how you read things in the accounts.

From the last set of accounts.....

We had an operating loss of nearly ?150,000.

The club have no debts by way of loans due to anyone but the do show a Creditors (due within 12 months) column amounting to nearly ?400,000. No note of the potential liability for what's being claimed by Niculae has been included in any of that.

Cash in bank/hand had dropped to about ?350,000.

These are figures taken as at May last year and since then our income has dropped dramatically....whilst our costs do not appear to have been cut proportionately....e.g. We're still carrying a squad which is much the same sizes as we had in the SPL, which will be the clubs biggest cost.

Yes, if you ignore the Creditors column then we have no debt, but we also have no assets and very little on which to secure investment....and it will take investment to allow us to get back to the SPL. First and foremost that investment needs to be made in securing players for the future....DFS says himself that it will take a big turnaround to go back up this season, a contradiction to the "we don't know what league we will be in" excuses emanating from the club itself. It's little wonder people take these statements with a pinch of salt.

I don't think anyone has suggested the club is in debt, but finances must be very precarious and the time to sort it out is whilst we still have money in the bank to do it, not when the wolf is at the door and people are being forced to make snap decisions trying to save pennies when they should be working on where we can save, or indeed make, pounds. Again it all stinks of the reactionary mindset that runs this club, the "we'll deal with it when it happens" attitude.

I would also like to know where the ?5 Million figure comes from....I can piece together about a quarter of that, and that's on the basis that you count Tulloch money as DFS money. I certainly don't count the purchase of the Stadium and the leasehold for the land it sits on as an investment.

I also wonder if the reference to a wealthy board is DFS laying down the challenge to our board to put their hands in their pockets.

It was pointed out to me the other day that the board are in effect burning their own money (or DFS money) with the way they operate and that's true. What irks me though is that every time they cough up to bail themselves out they are rewarded with shares and take the club further away from the fans and their increased "Power" reduces the chance of any external investment. That can only go on for so long...what happens when there's no shares left to give out? Do we do a Rangers/Celtic and conjure up another share issue and further dilute the voice of the fans/minor shareholders?

It's all in the spin and I for one ain't falling for it and although answers have been given, it's not really answers to the questions that are/should be getting asked.

It is an interesting read but IMHO it answers nothing. Lets break it down

1. "That Celtic game did us a power of good," explained David Sutherland, then the Caley Thistle chairman and, while no longer a board member, still the majority shareholder of the club.
   
   
   • Indeed, it did. We earned a few quid, got national (and international exposure) and everyone was happy. It also made the transition from the chairmanship of DM to the chairmanship of DFS a smooth one for him as not only was the feelgood factor there, but shortly thereafter all our debt "disappeared"
     
   • 
     

   [*]"Relegation from Scotland's top flight last May has come at a typically heavy cost for Inverness. They were hardly free-spenders in the SPL but, as any other club will discover and by Sutherland's blunt admission, decline in supporter numbers and television revenue when in the First Division has a major impact for any club"

   • Cant really argue with most of that, and I wont question the decline in revenues from TV, and other advertisers which is probably greater than we would like to think. However, I would question one of the variables because as we know from press releases at the beginning of the season, season ticket sales were UP on last season as fans acted on the plea from the club to support in bigger numbers. Whilst cash ticket sales may be down on a weekly basis, the simple math is that we have more season ticket holders than before and it doesnt matter (financially) if they attend a game or not, the money still goes to the club.
     
   • 
     

   [*]The local businessman, who has invested ?5million of his own money into the football club without any return, disputes local rumour that Caley Thistle are somehow in fiscal difficulty.

   • He may not have had any FINANCIAL return, but I would suggest he has had plenty of return in other ways. As the major shareholder, he has been the man able to steer the ship whether he was "on the bridge" as chairman or not. He has the power to appoint 3 directors and the chairman so retains complete control over the club.
     
     Of the ?5m reportedly invested, I believe that a lot of it is in shares bought in the name of his company or companies, yet I believe his personal shareholding is still only 250 shares which matches the amount thousands of other small investors have bought, so you could argue the semantics of whether it is "personal" finances or his company finances? I have no idea about company taxation and such like but in my mind it also raises the question of whether his main businesses received any tax benefits for investing in a money losing business? However these questions are indeed a matter of semantics as I would say that whether personally or through one or more of his companies he has caused a significant sum to be invested in the club one way or another so I would give him a pass on that one.
     
     Another portion of the ?5m is presumably the cost of the stands that were built. Again, you could argue the returns on this. Without question, I would say he has not seen any financial return on them, but again, he was not the sole contributor to these, ICT also paid money towards it (250K is memory serves me correctly) and the one BIG bonus he got from it was stadium naming rights for the entire duration of our SPL years. If Stirling Albion can value their club naming rights at ?50K per year in the 2nd division, what price the rights to name the stadium in the SPL and get all the coverage on TV and in print where the name "Tulloch Caledonian Stadium" is frequently used over the course of 5 years (and beyond).
     
   • 
     

   [*]"I will always help the club out not if, but when, that is needed," he said. "But we have a pretty focused and wealthy board in place at Caley Thistle now."

   • What has the "wealth" of the board got to do with anything? If they are so wealthy and we have money in the bank and such like then why are there so many examples that when taken separately might seem innocuous, but when lumped together seem to indicate that all might not be as rosy as we are being led to believe. As the major shareholder in the club, why is he also not pressuring the board to answer the questions of the rank and file shareholders and dispel these scurrilous rumours?
     

As I have said before on this matter, I do have respect for Mr Sutherland, and I am not seeking to minimise the contribution he made or the effect of his interjections in times of need. However, what we need now are some straight answers to the legitimate questions that have been raised both in terms of the club finances (which this interview touched on only briefly), and on the whole stadium ownership issue (which this article avoided like the plague).

Not looking to argue with you CD because you seem to have a better grasp on the financial aspect of the club than I do but there's a couple of things you mentioned that don't sit well:

I would also like to know where the ?5 Million figure comes from....I can piece together about a quarter of that, and that's on the basis that you count Tulloch money as DFS money. I certainly don't count the purchase of the Stadium and the leasehold for the land it sits on as an investment.

Even if it is a quarter of the ?5mil figure quoted... that's a lot of money to invest. Why would you hold that against him?

It was pointed out to me the other day that the board are in effect burning their own money (or DFS money) with the way they operate and that's true. What irks me though is that every time they cough up to bail themselves out they are rewarded with shares and take the club further away from the fans and their increased "Power" reduces the chance of any external investment. That can only go on for so long...what happens when there's no shares left to give out? Do we do a Rangers/Celtic and conjure up another share issue and further dilute the voice of the fans/minor shareholders?

If you were investing your own cash in the club would you not expect shares in return? Again, I don't think it's fair to hold that against them.

It seems clear to me that the stadium ownership is the major issue here. From the sounds of it we are no worse off than the majority of clubs in Scotland... infact if we have no debt (CD please feel free to explain the difference between a Creditors column and debt because they sound exactly the same) then we are a lot better off.

Edited February 8, 201016 yr by Harry Chibber

(CD please feel free to explain the difference between a Creditors column and debt because they sound exactly the same)

I think the point is that we have no bank debt (loans or overdraft). All companies have creditors, just because of the way normal business transactions are usually settled in arrears - paying suppliers, utility bills, VAT, PAYE etc.

I don't hold his (Tullochs) investment against him, be it ?5 Million, ?1 Million or ?1,000...what does annoy me is that there's a perception that he's invested more than he has and that he's had/is getting no return. I don't deny anyone the right to make a fair investment for fair return....but let's not try and make it out to be more than it is and let's be upfront in offsetting what's been gained in return.

The (now disbanded) Members Club invested somewhere in the region of ?1 Million and the voting right passed down from that over the years (now held by the Supporters Trust) is in the region of 10%. Tulloch have a shareholding somewhere in the region of 750,000 shares (at ?1 per share) and have a voting right of about 30% as a result. So whilst the fans have been expected to take a hit on their holding in order to position the club to receive investment, it's clear that others have never been willing to do the same.

A Creditor is some who will be due money for goods or services whereas a Debt tends to refer to cash loans.

(CD please feel free to explain the difference between a Creditors column and debt because they sound exactly the same)

I think the point is that we have no bank debt (loans or overdraft). All companies have creditors, just because of the way normal business transactions are usually settled in arrears - paying suppliers, utility bills, VAT, PAYE etc.

general running costs then?

As I said.....it's all in the "spin".

Don , theres none so blind as those who refuse to see !

Don , theres none so blind as those who refuse to see !

Simple fact is we beat about the bush. The club was a family club when we were in the lower divsions where supporters and businesses in the city were looked after by ICT.

Once ICT reached the SPL the ordinary punter in the street and many companies who sponsored the club were pushed aside as the club were arrogant and complacent as they were receiving substantial tv money. The club has never recovered and never will unless they club gets back to basic and look after the ordinary punter. Across the bridge is a great example of this!

Talking of the Members Club, we were taked into reducing our share/vote on a few occasions as it was blocking the way for serious investors (plural) to come into the club.

Where did they all go to? The Members Club were edged out and should have fought harder to keep their say.

Talking of the Members Club, we were taked into reducing our share/vote on a few occasions as it was blocking the way for serious investors (plural) to come into the club.

Where did they all go to? The Members Club were edged out and should have fought harder to keep their say.

Sorry, but to say the members club should have fought harder is out of order. The members club were given no option but to surrender by the dear Mr Sutherland. Either the MC goes or no new money comes in. YES just another idle threat to get the "old guard" out of the way so he didn't have too many questions being asked. Alos please don't forget his promise to transfer Tulloch's shares (after 5 years) to the Supporters Trust - aye - that will be right! :(

To be fair to David Sutherland, it's Cyril that said he'd put ?5,000,000 into the club. Poor journalism really, to be expected from him. I wonder if he followed Sutherland into the toilet to check how the magnate 'measured up' after the interview finished.

Edited February 9, 201016 yr by ictchris

I saw Cyril in the Heathmount not that long ago, snooping around for a story.

If you were investing your own cash in the club would you not expect shares in return?.

Exactly what I was thinking. Can't believe Sutherland would simply pour the cash into the proverbial black hole.

One comment that caught my eye was this and how depressing it was to read it,

"There are enough players around the British market for us to continue to be competitive within a budget."

Has Sutherland adopted the Butcher ethos and will the ICT become a local free zone?.

If budget is a consideration then we need to design a team around local lads that have come through the youth system, right now this is not happening, the local lads routinely get dumped aged 17-19 and the full time places given to players from the south and beyond. We want to see a few local heroes instead of the rubbish Butcher has brought in, there is very little to get excited about right now.

One comment that caught my eye was this and how depressing it was to read it,

"There are enough players around the British market for us to continue to be competitive within a budget."

Has Sutherland adopted the Butcher ethos and will the ICT become a local free zone?.

If budget is a consideration then we need to design a team around local lads that have come through the youth system, right now this is not happening, the local lads routinely get dumped aged 17-19 and the full time places given to players from the south and beyond. We want to see a few local heroes instead of the rubbish Butcher has brought in, there is very little to get excited about right now.

I'd rather we adopted the ethos of playing the best players, regardless of where they come from.

One comment that caught my eye was this and how depressing it was to read it,

"There are enough players around the British market for us to continue to be competitive within a budget."

Has Sutherland adopted the Butcher ethos and will the ICT become a local free zone?.

If budget is a consideration then we need to design a team around local lads that have come through the youth system, right now this is not happening, the local lads routinely get dumped aged 17-19 and the full time places given to players from the south and beyond. We want to see a few local heroes instead of the rubbish Butcher has brought in, there is very little to get excited about right now.

Fair point and something I didn't think of when first reading the article.

My mate is forever saying that our downfall is due to the foreigners in the squad... I find it difficult agreeing that an Irish/english contingent can have that much difficulty adapting to the Scottish game but maybe he has a point regarding Zadi, Bully & Sanchez ..... Perhaps we should adopt a similar approach as Athletic Bilbao who literally will not play any player unless they are from the Basque country.