The Board of Directors of ICTFC are delighted to report that Gordon Fyfe has accepted an invitation to become a Director and his involvement will begin immediately.  Gordon has a passion for football and has a wide experience in communication and these assets combine to make him an ideal candidate for the job.

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/2069-gordon-fyfe-joins-ictfc-board-of-directors

Well, people said they wanted a football man on the board. They've got one now!  Good choice.

This is a good positive appointment.  I look foward to a more proactive and professional approach to our PR from now on.

1 minute ago, Kind of Blue said:

This is a good positive appointment.  I look foward to a more proactive and professional approach to our PR from now on.

Good appointment. Bound to be an improvement on the media and PR front compared to the well intentioned but ineffective and amateurish efforts of the self styled 'media team' over the past two or three seasons.

Beginning to be a Muirfield Mills monopoly - Gordy used to have a sweeter left foot than Chalmers.

2 hours ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

Beginning to be a Muirfield Mills monopoly.

It also means that all four directors, apart from being "Inverness boys", are also former pupils of Crown Primary School or Inverness Royal Academy, or in Gordy's case, both. The Crown and the Kaddy..... Inverness's answer to Eton and Oxford - righ'eenuff mun!

On the other hand that does somewhat break down when you realise that this makes IHE an Invernessian "Old Etonian".

Excellent appointment of Gordy who has a background in the two much needed areas of football and communication.

Does seem like a good, positive appointment to me..I'm happy that the club seem to be following through on Graeme Rae's promise to build a sustainable future for ICT, particularly after the utter turmoil the club endured over the summer

Gordy is the only one with a football playing background though.

11 hours ago, jingsmonty said:

Does seem like a good, positive appointment to me..I'm happy that the club seem to be following through on Graeme Rae's promise to build a sustainable future for ICT, particularly after the utter turmoil the club endured over the summer

I think I'll wait and see how this works out as our club needed someone with access to much needed funding. I don't even know if he holds any shares but I suppose it's easy enough to check. sorry to see even our major shareholders don't have a seat on the board.

1 minute ago, caleyboy said:

 sorry to see even our major shareholders don't have a seat on the board.

They do. The biggest shareholder is the ICT Charitable Trust, controlled by Muirfield Mills, who also have a controlling presence on the Board.

4 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

They do. The biggest shareholder is the ICT Charitable Trust, controlled by Muirfield Mills, who also have a controlling presence on the Board.

do you mean the organisation responsible for transferring the lease to others with commercial objectives?

Edited December 5, 20178 yr by caleyboy

3 hours ago, caleyboy said:

do you mean the organisation responsible for transferring the lease to others with commercial objectives?

That depends on your relative take between the McGilvray/Savage statement and the response which Tullochs were asked for over a week ago and which must surely be forthcoming before too long.

1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

That depends on your relative take between the McGilvray/Savage statement and the response which Tullochs were asked for over a week ago and which must surely be forthcoming before too long.

I think you know exactly what I mean Charles. If you held the level of shares the McGilvray family and Alan Savage own surely you would want a very strong representation on the board to ensure their investment is secure. With the greatest respect to Gordon Fyfe, Ì am sure his PR ability is not under question but I don't think he moves in circles which would attract the investment needed here or make a personal investment to justify a seat on the board. Times have changed when it was ok to sit on the board with a small shareholding. In my opinion  directors should have a minimum £50k shareholding or at least represent someone holding that level but again that is just my view. We need to attract big investment to this club or we go bust - simple - just look at the balance sheet.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, caleyboy said:

I think you know exactly what I mean Charles. If you held the level of shares the McGilvray family and Alan Savage own surely you would want a very strong representation on the board to ensure their investment is secure. With the greatest respect to Gordon Fyfe, Ì am sure his PR ability is not under question but I don't think he moves in circles which would attract the investment needed here or make a personal investment to justify a seat on the board. Times have changed when it was ok to sit on the board with a small shareholding. In my opinion  directors should have a minimum £50k shareholding or at least represent someone holding that level but again that is just my view. We need to attract big investment to this club or we go bust - simple - just look at the balance sheet.

 

 

 

Caleyboy.... first, let me become Devil's Advocate. "Investment is secure"? Investment in what? In over half a million ICT shares in exchange for an undisclosed sum to the Hospice, not the club, the large majority of which shares were originally bought by Ian Fraser for £1 each in 1996 and then sold in the early 2000s to Sandy Catto for, allegedly, much less than that before Sandy donated his entire holding to the Hospice. That in addition to 285,000 shares received in exchange for bankrolling the wages of Marius Niculae - cash which may have long since found its way to a bank in Romania. Just for balance, much of Muirfield Mills' influence originates from 730,000 shares donated to the Trust by Tullochs.

It's also interesting to note that Caleyboy's main stated criterion for board membership is one which is regrettably common in football - the means and the willingness to subsidise a fundamentally loss-making business which has been obliged to follow the unsustainable industry norm of paying its employees vastly in excess of their true market value.

Is it only me that requires a diagram to fully understand how our football team/club/ trust / board/ ground/ ownership is set up?! 

Also, with the utmost respect Charles, I think CB's point about the Mc Gill's/ Savage "investment" is extremely relevant

 

Merely an exercise in capricous Devil's Advocacy on my part Ronaldo ? (Albeit with a bit of realism about football economics in general.)  As for the ICT set up, it sometimes reminds me of the Schleswig Holstein question of which Lord Palmerston once said that it had only ever been understood by three people - the Prince Consort, who was dead; a German professor, who had gone mad; and himself... and he had had long since forgotten.

So is it perhaps perhaps being proposed that ICT should go the way of Ross County, but with Orion/Weldex money rather than Global's?

Edited December 6, 20178 yr by Charles Bannerman

4 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Caleyboy.... first, let me become Devil's Advocate. "Investment is secure"? Investment in what? In over half a million ICT shares in exchange for an undisclosed sum to the Hospice, not the club, the large majority of which shares were originally bought by Ian Fraser for £1 each in 1996 and then sold in the early 2000s to Sandy Catto for, allegedly, much less than that before Sandy donated his entire holding to the Hospice. That in addition to 285,000 shares received in exchange for bankrolling the wages of Marius Niculae - cash which may have long since found its way to a bank in Romania. Just for balance, much of Muirfield Mills' influence originates from 730,000 shares donated to the Trust by Tullochs.

It's also interesting to note that Caleyboy's main stated criterion for board membership is one which is regrettably common in football - the means and the willingness to subsidise a fundamentally loss-making business which has been obliged to follow the unsustainable industry norm of paying its employees vastly in excess of their true market value.

In the main I agree Charles, but it doesn't really matter how these people acquired their shares. Financially the shares are not worth a penny but they control this club and my only interest is that the club survives. We need MONEY/INVESTMENT to achieve this but If you have any better ideas please share them.

2 hours ago, caleyboy said:

In the main I agree Charles, but it doesn't really matter how these people acquired their shares. Financially the shares are not worth a penny but they control this club and my only interest is that the club survives. We need MONEY/INVESTMENT to achieve this but If you have any better ideas please share them.

The question then arises: do you want them to be represented on the board because they own significant shareholdings - however acquired - or because they have money which you would like them to donate or gift to the club to maintain, or perhaps rather to achieve, its solvency?

Whichever way you look at this question, football's dependence on gifts and donations - terms which tend to masquerade under the misnomer of "investment" - is inescapable. I can't off the top of my head think of any other type of business which depends on donations from wealthy individuals to stand between its otherwise unsustainable business model and financial oblivion.

Edited December 6, 20178 yr by Charles Bannerman

8 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I can't off the top of my head think of any other type of business which depends on donations from wealthy individuals to stand between its otherwise unsustainable business model and financial oblivion.

The Tory Party

5 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

The Tory Party

Ok... politics in general (except maybe that the Greens sell hairy hand knitted woollen jumpers). One lot are as bad as the other. That's also assuming you can define politics as a "business". The worry there is the relatively high level of integrity you tend to find in business.

Edited December 6, 20178 yr by Charles Bannerman

23 hours ago, caleyboy said:

Financially the shares are not worth a penny but they control this club and my only interest is that the club survives. We need MONEY/INVESTMENT to achieve this but If you have any better ideas please share them.

This.

Personally, I could care less who is in charge of our club provided they have the best interests of the club at heart. We have seen too many egos over the years and too many factions who pull in different directions when we could and should pull together.

 

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

This.

Personally, I could care less who is in charge of our club provided they have the best interests of the club at heart. We have seen too many egos over the years and too many factions who pull in different directions when we could and should pull together.

 

I also couldn't care less who runs our club but we are in a mess and we desperately need people on the board who can either provide investment or at least attract it and have the business leadership to get us out of the mess.  If not we are BUST 

Back to the topic ........ I'd just like to wish my ex colleague Gordie all the best and look forward to seeing what materialises and bending his ear about a few things.

9 hours ago, Row S said:

Back to the topic ........ I'd just like to wish my ex colleague Gordie all the best and look forward to seeing what materialises and bending his ear about a few things.

It's more than an old boys club/old mates society this club needs now. I'm sure he will talk a lot of sense but I don' see him having any influence 

Looks like Gordy has got it going already. Wish I was in Sneck. What about an ICT Walking Football local league ?