First time poster guys - just seeing what's already out there in terms of the fans putting additional resources into the club . Having read through the forum a lot of people would be willing to buy season tickets and merchandise which is great . Unfortunately that's not going to be enough to keep the vultures at bay so just seeing if there are any fans initiatives already on the go which would put additional cash into the club . Much like what Hearts done in there time of need and Rangers with there fund . Just trying to think of a way to help .

Jeez!!  what the f*ck is going on?   Gardiner is behind this to feck the club up before disappears south. 

I'd love to put my size 12's into that mans gonads.

7 minutes ago, caley100 said:

 I'd love to put my size 12's into that mans gonads.

Get in line

This bit in the interview with Savage is very significant and, if true, the only new news we have had on this deal in the last few days.

Savage claimed: “I believe certain groups of shareholders have given their shares to Seventy7 to get its shareholding over 50%, as they are only buying 20% of the club. Why would they give shares to someone they don’t know? What’s in it for them?”

Good question. If Savage is correct, it would have to be a number of our largest shareholders, well known names and big ICT fans, who decided to give their shares to the new investor. And to be clear, that would have been their decision, not SG’s or the Board’s.

10 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

This bit in the interview with Savage is very significant and, if true, the only new news we have had on this deal in the last few days.

Savage claimed: “I believe certain groups of shareholders have given their shares to Seventy7 to get its shareholding over 50%, as they are only buying 20% of the club. Why would they give shares to someone they don’t know? What’s in it for them?”

Good question. If Savage is correct, it would have to be a number of our largest shareholders, well known names and big ICT fans, who decided to give their shares to the new investor. And to be clear, that would have been their decision, not SG’s or the Board’s.

Rats leaving the ship?

You might expect Makwana to be in attendance on Saturday if the deal is as far advanced as they would have you believe. You would also expect under normal circumstances for him to be chaperoned by his new BFF. 

These however, are far from normal circumstances. 

 

Just now, Leaky Blinder said:

You might expect Makwana to be in attendance on Saturday if the deal is as far advanced as they would have you believe. You would also expect under normal circumstances for him to be chaperoned by his new BFF. 

These however, are far from normal circumstances. 

 

Let's hope he can find the stadium.

15 minutes ago, Satan said:

Let's hope he can find the stadium.

Even if he does they won't let him bring in his adventure stick 

28 minutes ago, Leaky Blinder said:

Even if he does they won't let him bring in his adventure stick 

I wouldn't want to be sitting next to him when he gets phygital

1 hour ago, Zabriskie said:

• former player and assistant manager Duncan Shearer asked in his Tuesday P&J column: “Who are his backers? How does he intend on tackling the debt at the club? Will there be funding available to take the club forward?”
   
• Shearer also questioned what the future holds for Caley Thistle chief executive Scot Gardiner, who tendered his resignation in June, but was credited by Makwana for helping secure the shareholding.
   
• I believe certain groups of shareholders have given their shares to Seventy7 to get its shareholding over 50%, as they are only buying 20% of the club. Why would they give shares to someone they don’t know? What’s in it for them?
   
• A shareholders’ meeting would have been in order.
   
• He’s had six goes at buying football clubs and been rejected six times. It’s not a train set – it’s a proud member of the SPFL.
   
• I just can’t see how Seventy7 and the club could have done full due diligence on this deal.
   
• Had I been on the (club) board six months ago, I’d have been asking (now former director) David Cameron and Allan Munro whether they were going to continue funding the club, and, if not, would have started trying to find a buyer then.
   
• There are lots of benefits of being the owner of a football club – business people and film stars are buying clubs in France, Holland, Wales, all over the place. Buyers can fly there, play golf and watch the football. The club here is an attractive proposition, but to leave the deal until one minute to midnight…  Have they just accepted it?”
   
• Like Savage, many fans have voiced their opposition to ICT CEO Gardiner remaining in place, saying they won’t buy merchandise of go and see the team while he remains at the club.
   
• I read Duncan Shearer’s column, and I fall in line with what he’s saying – there are many questions to be answered.
   
• Amid it all, you still have Scot Gardiner there, who appears to have done the negotiations on behalf of the club. Most entrepreneurial people who buy and sell businesses for a living like to decide matters themselves. But will he keep Scot Gardiner on, because he’s not appointed a CEO, has he? Fans will understandably go crazy if that happens.”
   
• In May, Savage who told the Press and Journal he and his son Paul will pitch in with an Orion-driven initiative of up to £100k if needed to support the ICT youth academy. He said at the time: “I am prepared to cover any shortfalls with sponsorships of various types... The caveats for me is no dealings with Scot Gardiner, and that any money given stays to run that department, independent of the football club.”
   
• I stand by my commitment that, through Orion, I will protect the youth development, both boys and girls. I want to put sufficient money in to realise Charlie Christie’s ambition of continuing to mentor players, such as he did with his son Ryan. Whatever happens and whichever direction the club takes Orion is committed to do that.

 

Jeez-O - so many valid points in there that even edited its still most of the article. Thank You Alan Savage for telling it like it is and for Duncan Shearer for highlighting the questions that need to be asked. Also speaks volumes that he makes it quite clear in his interview on more than one occasion that he doesn't want to deal with our CEO and neither do the fans. At least these two get it, along with the supporters. We have to keep the social media pressure up so that whoever takes the reins of our club passes the sniff test.  

The lyrics of this football-loving Proclaimers song seem appropriate with just a little adjustment.

 

I'm not sure I can believe that the board are that far removed from reality that they would trust a ceo working his notice to be deciding the clubs future.

However that clashes with the idea that the whole resignation thing is/was a hoax and he was always staying and that's equally far removed from reality.

Bonus points for anyone who can come up with a sane explanation for what's going on.

8 minutes ago, STFU said:

 

Bonus points for anyone who can come up with a sane explanation for what's going on.

This is the sanest I've got for what's going on 

I’ve been doing a bit of number crunching based on what Alan Savage has said, although this is pretty provisional since the precise definition of the 20% he refers to isn’t clear.

But VERY provisionally, in order to get 50%, (with the ST 10% factored in) by contributing “20%”, Makanwa may have to provide something like as little as 800K to £1.14M of new money IF he were able to acquire enough existing shares to top that up to 50%. That amount of new money, frankly, barely scratches the backside of the club’s financial plight and even to do this, he might need somewhere between 1.77 and 1.87 million of the current 4 million shares. Unless they plan chasing round dozens or even hundreds of smaller investors, this would involve a large commitment of the very top holdings, bringing in people like Muirfield Mills, the Charitable Trust, the McGilvrays and David Sutherland. On the other hand, there may be enough unsold new shares available to do that without recourse to a shareholders’ meeting.

Edited July 30, 20241 yr by Charles Bannerman

Considering Morrison is not a Director or employee you have to question why the Board allowed him to facilitate the direction of the football club - this is from Makwana'a Linkedin page

'My heartfelt gratitude to

Scot Gardiner, Ross Morrison and the team at Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club'

10 hours ago, Yngwie said:

This bit in the interview with Savage is very significant and, if true, the only new news we have had on this deal in the last few days.

Savage claimed: “I believe certain groups of shareholders have given their shares to Seventy7 to get its shareholding over 50%, as they are only buying 20% of the club. Why would they give shares to someone they don’t know? What’s in it for them?”

Good question. If Savage is correct, it would have to be a number of our largest shareholders, well known names and big ICT fans, who decided to give their shares to the new investor. And to be clear, that would have been their decision, not SG’s or the Board’s.

In answer to the question asked by Savage, and which we were all wondering too, as to why shareholders would give away their shares, I can now think of 2 reasons.

1. To save the club, if a new investor will only put money in if they gain control ie over 50%, which would likely be a condition of any purchaser. Let’s not forget that if we don’t get a cash injection very soon, the club goes into administration and may well get wound up.

2. Create a tax loss. Disposing of their shares for nothing triggers a capital loss, which can be offset against any future capital gains. This will likely be the only way our shareholders will ever generate a financial benefit from their shares in the club.

I am no financial expert but this situation with the current information we have looks extremely worrying and has desperation written all over it from all parties involved. Let’s hope it’s not what it seems 

3 hours ago, Yngwie said:

In answer to the question asked by Savage, and which we were all wondering too, as to why shareholders would give away their shares, I can now think of 2 reasons.

1. To save the club, if a new investor will only put money in if they gain control ie over 50%, which would likely be a condition of any purchaser. Let’s not forget that if we don’t get a cash injection very soon, the club goes into administration and may well get wound up.

2. Create a tax loss. Disposing of their shares for nothing triggers a capital loss, which can be offset against any future capital gains. This will likely be the only way our shareholders will ever generate a financial benefit from their shares in the club.

As regards No 1, saving the club, I’m just not seeing how any of what we know so far might do that in the long term - or even in the shorter term. The most recent accounts show liabilities less what debtors (SFA?) owe within a year sitting at around £2 million; annual losses have been in the ballpark of £600K for some years; income streams have taken a hit by a plunge into League One; they have taken a further hit as a result of in some cases irreversibly low supporter morale and the battering that the club’s public image has taken as a result of how it has been going about its business.

Against that, if Alan Savage’s estimate of Makwana hoping to put in a 20% stake and being donated shares to take him above 50% is correct, then that would raise approximately £1M which doesn’t even tickle the current problem, never mind the ongoing one. There has been no mention of ongoing investment and although Makwana may have a lifetime dream of owning a football club, he would need backers and they may well not share his so-far not very convincingly expressed dream. And then there’s the question - are the club’s biggest shareholders simply going to hand over 40-45% of the equity to some unknown guy who has suddenly materialised from the woodwork?

Since this “deal” broke on Friday, I’ve been seeing countless unexplained red flags but not one iota of reassurance that this process might have any stability or credibility.

Meanwhile, the narrative seems to have shifted slightly with some transposition of the chicken and the egg or the cart and the horse or whatever. It needs to be remembered that the whole purpose of what’s going on is to give the club financial stability and not how Ketan Makwana could achieve a majority shareholding at a knockdown cost to himself.

Pardon my pessimism, but I’m really struggling to see any way out of this.

Edited July 31, 20241 yr by Charles Bannerman

2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

In answer to the question asked by Savage, and which we were all wondering too, as to why shareholders would give away their shares, I can now think of 2 reasons.

1. To save the club, if a new investor will only put money in if they gain control ie over 50%, which would likely be a condition of any purchaser. Let’s not forget that if we don’t get a cash injection very soon, the club goes into administration and may well get wound up.

2. Create a tax loss. Disposing of their shares for nothing triggers a capital loss, which can be offset against any future capital gains. This will likely be the only way our shareholders will ever generate a financial benefit from their shares in the club.

I guess that if the club went into administration, that would also represent a capital loss.  But in any case, I don't imagine any shareholder in the club expects to ever get any money back on the shares, so I don't see why they would give shares away to an unknown outside investor.  If they were going to give their shares away to create a capital loss, why not just give them to someone associated with the club who clearly has the best interest of the club at heart.

To save the club seems a more plausible reason.  However, if that was the reason, then surely any significant shareholder with a long term involvement and attachment to the club would need to have been given cast iron assurances that the plans for the club guaranteed the longer term security of the club.  At the moment, we have heard nothing that gives us any confidence that is the case.

There is, of course, a 3rd possible reason.  Rather than having "given away" their shares, they could have "given up" their shares in exchange for something else.  In other words. they could have sold out for profit or for some stake in an associated development.

This, of course, is purely speculation. We just don't know what is going on.  What we do know is that this is all extremely worrying.

 

 

I really fear for the future of ICTFC. I cant believe the amount of disastereous decisions this Board have been responsible for. This has been years in the making. 
These people are supposed to have finely tuned minds, to make sound business decisions. Would they have ran their businesses in such a shoddy manner?
I could have ran the club better. Also, while im at it, how many of the board actually have a long held links to ICTFC? Are they actually supporters of the club? Im thinking they are on the baord for the opportunities it creates for themselves!

I really fear that in not too distant future, the Caledonian Stadium could be gone and replaced with a lucrative development....and that will be goal achieved!!
 

Edited July 31, 20241 yr by SMEE

27 minutes ago, SMEE said:

These people are supposed to have finely tuned minds, to make sound business decisions. Would they have ran their businesses in such a shoddy manner?

How many of them ran/run businesses of the scale of Caley Thistle?

Just now, SMEE said:

I really fear that in not too distant future, the Caledonian Stadium could be gone and replaced with a lucrative development....and that will be goal achieved!!

This is on Common Good Land.  When the Council approved the 99 year lease it was controversial in terms of the definition of Common Good.  The Council will only approve any future development that benefits the Common Good. Any development that did not benefit the football club would end up at the full Council.   

2 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

But in any case, I don't imagine any shareholder in the club expects to ever get any money back on the shares, so I don't see why they would give shares away to an unknown outside investor.  If they were going to give their shares away to create a capital loss, why not just give them to someone associated with the club who clearly has the best interest of the club at heart.

Like a bunch of other supporters, I have the minimum shareholding. My £250 was a donation as far as I am concerned and as you point out, it's a football club, so you are not expecting any return on that. Ever. It was simply a way to feel you were involved, had a stake in the club, not necessarily in the running of it, and not as an official, but as a way to declare your loyalty and affinity for the club. In the same way as being a season ticket holder, a sponsor or buying merchandise gives you the warm and fuzzies knowing you are helping keep our club afloat. 

If I were to pass these shares on, then there are only two destinations. My son (most likely) or (if he was not interested) to someone like the ST who continue to work for the good and benefit of the club ... absolutely not to some random guy from LinkedIn using made up words and corporate BS to, IMHO, cover all of this in a layer of grubby plausibility (if you are gullible enough).

 

Not sure if it is legal or not, but I would like the council to come out and say that if the club defaults on the lease or ceases to be a going concern, that the remainder of the 99 year lease on the land is null and void. If the ultimate aim is to get their hands on the land, within the freeport, then something like this may send any opportunistic venture capitalist / asset stripper scuttling away.

 

And the club are now doubling down .... Panos is the new chairman and looks forward to working with the new owner. 

PRESS RELEASE

 

The Board of Directors of Inverness Caledonian Thistle have appointed Mr Panos Thomas as their Interim Chairman as they focus on completing a deal to welcome a new majority shareholder to the club.

 

Mr Thomas is a retired orthopaedic surgeon and tutor specialising in sports and knee injuries, who joined the Board as a Director in December 2022. 

 

Mr Thomas is in regular contact with Ketan Makwana, the Executive Chairman of Seventy7 Ventures, the UK-based sports entertainment and leisure company, who have had a formal offer to acquire the majority of the club’s shareholding and voting rights accepted by the Board.

 

Mr Thomas said: “I am honoured to have been given the opportunity to chair the Board of Directors at this critical time in the 30-year history of the club.  It is a big responsibility but one which I am relishing."

 

“I have been hugely impressed by the drive, energy and vision of Mr Makwana and look forward to continuing to work with him in the coming weeks as our legal representatives discuss the fine detail needed to complete the deal."

Mr Thomas moved to the Highlands in 2012 when he became a season ticket holder and recently moved from Nairn to reside in Inverness.

 

Appointed Vice-Chairman is Mr Scott Young, who is a former football coach and referee with almost 30 years experience as a veterinary surgeon.  Mr Young is the most recently appointed Director of the club, joining in August 2023.

Statement Ends

 

They're taunting fans now.

They'd have been better leaving out the entertainment 720 stuff and having it solely as a new chairman announcement.

With a surgeon and a vet there, the question remains - why do we always have so many injuries? 

And, as I said earlier, what do they know about running businesses of the scale of Caley Thistle?

I also note that Thomas is "Interim" Chairman, which probably means that he - and the others? - will be offski once Mr Phygital takes over.