Just seeing a story on front page of courier this morning saying Tullochs are to gift the stands to the club, giving them complete ownership of them and will mean no longer paying a rent to Tullochs. Big bonus for the club not having that financial burden over them

To be fair, Tulloch's have had the benefit of 'naming rights' for the last decade or more. The club certainly owed them and David Sutherland a debt of gratitude at the time but that debt has been more than repaid in terms of publicity on a national basis week in and week out.

Outstanding gift if confirmed. 

I seem to recall a lot of chat about the North / South stands having a life of ten years. Was there ever any truth in this or just idle rumours?

Edited December 2, 20169 yr by RiG

28 minutes ago, RiG said:

I seem to recall a lot of chat about the North / South stands having a life of ten years. Was there ever any truth in this or just idle rumours?

My understanding is that the seating structure (separate from the stand) came with a 10 year warranty.....which is a lot different than a 10 year lifespan.

Hey - David Sutherland still owes me a double voddie for the postponed Cellic game.

47 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

My understanding is that the seating structure (separate from the stand) came with a 10 year warranty.....which is a lot different than a 10 year lifespan.

Yeah just a wee bit of a difference! Maybe that's what folk were referring to.

This is the best Christmas present ever! 

2 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

To be fair, Tulloch's have had the benefit of 'naming rights' for the last decade or more. The club certainly owed them and David Sutherland a debt of gratitude at the time but that debt has been more than repaid in terms of publicity on a national basis week in and week out.

The value of that publicity over 10 years would be a few hundred thousand pounds, in the context of a gift worth millions.

Remains to be seen whether a condition of the gift is that the Tulloch name has to remain, but even if it does, it's a great deal for us.

The only downside I can think of concerns responsibility for replacement of the seating structures which may be getting towards the end of their life. Clearly ICT will have to pay for that when the time comes, but would that otherwise have been the landlord's responsibility? It would depend on the terms of the lease.

Perhaps this question is for CaleyD ... but does that mean Caley Thistle now own the stadium in full again - all the infrastructure, all the nuts and bolts, and all the paperwork pertaining to the remainder of the initial 99 year lease on the land - and nothing is left in trust as it was when DFS waved his magic wand and made the debt disappear? 

If so thats a tremendous gesture by Tulloch and far outweighs any benefit they got from stadium naming rights. I seem to remember we voted to give them rights for 5 years and that has rolled on ever since .... there's been a few grumbles over this in the past but if we now own our own house again with no strings attached then it was more than worth it !  

The club don't/won't "own" the original leasehold as that is/was a separate contract....transferring a lease is not a simple or straight forward affair as it needs agreeing by the landowner etc. What the club do have is a rock solid sub-lease....so we've got no worries about being turfed off the land or being priced out of existence on rent for that.

As sad as this may seem, it was actually a little emotional for me to have got the news on this.  I fought hard for assurances that the clubs position was protected after the new stands were built and things were being shuffled around. That dragged on for a few years and, as some may remember, I actually got "sacked" as a volunteer at the club over it.  When Kenny Cameron made a return to the club he arranged for me to meet David Sutherland who made me promises in regards to the club being looked after.  Because I wouldn't (couldn't) share information I was given at the time I was accused of all sorts by fellow fans and had to just take it on the chin.

That was about 6 or 7 years ago. Today saw that promise delivered and, for me, a little vindication.

This sounds like really superb news for the club but I doubt it will have a huge impact on the club's day to day finances.   Presumably we make savings in terms of lease payments but there may be more expenditure in relation to rates and maintenance.  It is the AGM next week so perhaps we will then know a little bit more about what this means in practical terms.  

What rent were we paying?

44 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

there may be more expenditure in relation to rates and maintenance.  

We will be responsible for those costs already.

Good news indeed, there are things going on in the background that we know nothing about!  As long as anything done is for the best of the club to keep us financially stable for the future.

One assumes that Tulloch will continue to pay the City property taxes? Or will ICT need to pay them?

3 hours ago, Scarlet Pimple said:

One assumes that Tulloch will continue to pay the City property taxes? Or will ICT need to pay them?

ICT will continue to pay them ... property taxes = 'rates' that were talked about earlier in the thread. 

Maybe we could use the  lease money now released from the budget to invest in a small safe standing area that could grow over time if fans fill it and atmosphere improves.

That would be an improvement for the stadium supported by tullochs grant. 

 

 

 What a great gift from someone who has presumably looked after the pennies whilst watching his empire grow and now seems to continually give it back for the good of the community.

 

I should really say what a great gift from Tulloch Homes.

 

The money saved simply has to go back to the fans, whether it's through lowered ticket prices, or subsiding something like a display or the buses 

I think most fans would rather see it go into strengthening the squad. 

Nobody really wants subsidised buses and displays against the likes of Dumbarton or Ayr, do they?

Even if there were subsidised buses people would still find an excuse not to go to a game.

If we save any money from this give it to Richie to improve the squad.

We don't actually know what the saving is,  another major plus, there is now collateral involved for potential investors

8 minutes ago, RiG said:

Even if there were subsidised buses people would still find an excuse not to go to a game.

If we save any money from this give it to Richie to improve the squad.

Agree with that-one of our closest away games of the season...and not even 200 travelling fans. And some of them were the bloody crocked/suspended players! Also,me of the cheapest grounds for entry too! 

Any and all 'spare' money needs to go to the playing squad. 

Its up to the club sponsors to think about subsidising busses, displays etc. 

On 02/12/2016 at 4:18 PM, CaleyD said:

The club don't/won't "own" the original leasehold as that is/was a separate contract....transferring a lease is not a simple or straight forward affair as it needs agreeing by the landowner etc.

Who's the landowner?