Following today's announcement by the club, the Supporters Trust has issued this statement, which is also being e-mailed to members:

https://www.ictsupporterstrust.org/post/ict-supporters-trust-statement-on-ictfc-new-investor

The Trust Board is grateful for the continued support of members.

We will continue to work on behalf of our members and the wider fan base and, if you are not currently a member, joining is easy using this link (and only £5, or £1 for Under 16s):

https://www.ictsupporterstrust.org/join-us

Therein lies a big part of the problem. The supporters trust have and still do allow the club to treat them like that with zero consequence.

As I said already it's weak and passive.

 

3 hours ago, STFU said:

The supporters trust need to push for talks before the deal is done or there could be no point to it.

I agree and in a fair and just, transparent and collegial world, yes. However, unless there's some special provision in the articles / shareholders' agreement - unique to ICT -  then there's actually very little that can be done by ST, or indeed by most shareholders, to have any influence on the deal. 

The ICT board will have formed a panel to deal with the offer, and this panel basically has carte blanche to call the shots and can also choose to forego many of the recommended steps in the Companies Act 2006 which would open the decision making up - this is the major issue as though its a 'friendly' takeover between ICT board and Seventy7 Ventures, it may not be very friendly to the minority shareholders/fans and also employees.  That panel is basically judge, jury and executioner. 

The next group of interest is the target shareholders (the target of Seventy7Ventures).  Again, if the panel and target shareholders are of one mind, and if the targets were many (or enough), minority shareholders will not be able to effect a sea change (but not knowing how many target shareholders there are, hard to say whether an action could be done, e.g. call a general meeting).

I hope I'm wrong and there is a provision somewhere, or non-target shareholders that can act, but I'm not seeing it yet.

Got the email this morning. The ST, I feel, goes to great lengths to justify itself, trying too hard where a quick sentence would be fine. However the reply is just glib, patronising shite.

12 hours ago, Achfary said:

The ST have to go through the process of welcoming and offering support to new owners.  I see from the email response that Ketan has committed to ensuring SG includes the ST in the upcoming meet and greet when he is in Inverness next.  

3 hours ago, STFU said:

Most worryingly he's taking council from Gardiner.

This is my main concern. If Gardiner is still in post, then we are doomed. His departure, as soon as possible, must be non-negotiable. You have the likes of Alan Savage saying they will still pump £100K into the youth side but only on condition that the CEO does not get his hands on a penny of it. Thats a pretty damning indictment. Thats before you even talk to staff, players, ex-players, local businesspeople, sponsors or fans. 

Whilst my initial thoughts on the "new owner" are not positive, and I have watched and shared the various videos and articles, I will reserve full judgement until something is presented. I remain to be convinced that this is not all smoke and mirrors with an ultimate end goal to do a grab on the land the stadium is situated on with a view to flipping the remainder of the lease for large profit based on its designation within the freeport area. Someone that self-admittedly could find no information on the club on google (there are approx. 1.3m hits when you google Inverness Caledonian Thistle by the way) does not strike me as being in this for philanthropic or altruistic reasons.    

 

10 minutes ago, The Mantis said:

However the reply is just glib, patronising shite.

Yes, that's exactly what I thought too. corporate equivalent of "**** off".  

41 minutes ago, Achfary said:

I agree and in a fair and just, transparent and collegial world, yes. However, unless there's some special provision in the articles / shareholders' agreement - unique to ICT -  then there's actually very little that can be done by ST, or indeed by most shareholders, to have any influence on the deal. 

They could call on the support of or back the actions/wishes of the fans/members.

Increasing membership numbers has been done to increase representation.  Use it instead of ignoring it.

5 minutes ago, Scotty said:

This is my main concern. If Gardiner is still in post, then we are doomed. His departure, as soon as possible, must be non-negotiable. You have the likes of Alan Savage saying they will still pump £100K into the youth side but only on condition that the CEO does not get his hands on a penny of it. Thats a pretty damning indictment. Thats before you even talk to staff, players, ex-players, local businesspeople, sponsors or fans. 

Whilst my initial thoughts on the "new owner" are not positive, and I have watched and shared the various videos and articles, I will reserve full judgement until something is presented. I remain to be convinced that this is not all smoke and mirrors with an ultimate end goal to do a grab on the land the stadium is situated on with a view to flipping the remainder of the lease for large profit based on its designation within the freeport area. Someone that self-admittedly could find no information on the club on google (there are approx. 1.3m hits when you google Inverness Caledonian Thistle by the way) does not strike me as being in this for philanthropic or altruistic reasons.    

 

Yes, that's exactly what I thought too. corporate equivalent of "**** off".  

It was clarified previously that the stadium does not fall within the freeport zone.

From me who is a positive thinking person I have been unable to find anything positive at all about the club in the latest crisis. 

55 minutes ago, The Mantis said:

Got the email this morning. The ST, I feel, goes to great lengths to justify itself, trying too hard where a quick sentence would be fine. However the reply is just glib, patronising *****.

These days, a reply/response seems like a victory/ a positive...

There is at least a clear marker/starter for ten now in terms of good faith/bad faith.

Ketan 'ensures SG will invite ST to first meeting' and 'guarantees to answer all the questions ST has'.  

Will Ketan honour his word to ask SG to invite ST? Probably, it's an audience after all.  

Will SG do his utmost to dissuade Ketan, definitely and probably successfully.

The ST still extracted a response and a commitment and that's a positive.

6 hours ago, Achfary said:

I agree and in a fair and just, transparent and collegial world, yes. However, unless there's some special provision in the articles / shareholders' agreement - unique to ICT -  then there's actually very little that can be done by ST, or indeed by most shareholders, to have any influence on the deal. 

The ICT board will have formed a panel to deal with the offer, and this panel basically has carte blanche to call the shots and can also choose to forego many of the recommended steps in the Companies Act 2006 which would open the decision making up - this is the major issue as though its a 'friendly' takeover between ICT board and Seventy7 Ventures, it may not be very friendly to the minority shareholders/fans and also employees.  That panel is basically judge, jury and executioner. 

The next group of interest is the target shareholders (the target of Seventy7Ventures).  Again, if the panel and target shareholders are of one mind, and if the targets were many (or enough), minority shareholders will not be able to effect a sea change (but not knowing how many target shareholders there are, hard to say whether an action could be done, e.g. call a general meeting).

I hope I'm wrong and there is a provision somewhere, or non-target shareholders that can act, but I'm not seeing it yet.

I’m laughing, like a condemned prisoner just about given up waiting in (forlorn) hope his pardon is about to come through before he is to be executed! 
You have summarised it concisely and precisely Achfary, and again I am impressed with the clarity of what you post. 
So, as I take all this in, I boil things down to the following: 

1) The major shareholders have signed up with S7V and have agreed to transfer over enough shares to allow S7V to gain 51% as the major shareholder, (and control) of the club. The reason for the existing major shareholders is either through philanthropic nature in the interests of the club, or their is possibly ‘something in it for them’ in a deal done in the shadowy world of jersey future investment opportunities.

2) The interest from S7V is in the development opportunities in the land of the ground and surrounding area in the Council Good Fund. How S7V allure the Council is for another day/posting. 

3) The supporters have already been set aside as incidental to the whole plan. They don’t matter and will play no part whatsoever in the decisions regarding the direction of the future S7V project visioned development of the land

4) The football club is simply a mechanism and hub to pull together the various elements of the plan. It is not in any way an attractive business investment, but needs to be retained. Ie Kept ticking over with the minimal expenditure. If it gains promotion then ‘fine’. 

5) To maintain the Council ‘engaged and on-side’ on the projected plans careful and managed communication about community and local benefit to the area must be maintained. Key job and entertainment/hand shaking required. 

6) Similarly, whilst not important there will be a need to have some level of interface with the football support Trust. Details to be decided later. 
 

Last cigarette sir ? 

Edited August 1, 20241 yr by big cherly

Never attribute to malice that which can be accounted for through stupidity.

The value of the total Common Good Fund dictates who has the say in the sale/distribution (disposal) of assets.  

If the value of the asset amounts to over 10% of the total CGF, which would presumably be the case for Caledonian Thistle Football Ground, then it is the Highland Council who decides (at least to go to court).  

The Highland Council needs the Sheriff Court's approval for change of use/disposal, but it does need to follow consultation protocols and take into account the views of community.

The Highland Council's 'Director of Development and Infrastructure' can also invoke their right to approve a lease request instead of the Inverness Common Good Fund Sub-Committee, if they so wished.

I don't know if it's malice or stupidity, could well be the latter, but it's not as if this wasn't tried before (ASDA?).