I don’t have time to post any more than this for now but Panos Thomas has emailed shareholders with a very lengthy update where the headline looks like being confirmation that, unless £200K can be raised by October 16th, then Administration would be “inevitable” since the club would be insolvent.

Edited October 2, 20241 yr by Charles Bannerman

4 hours ago, ictchris said:

I'm sure someone who knows can advise but I think the main difference is that administration is seen as a way to save companies whereas liquidation is a creditor looking to recovery any potential money.

Appointment of the provisional liquidator means that someone is looking to preserve the (remaining) assets of the club because there is a perceived risk of it going bust.

As you say, looks likely to be a creditor trying to ensure that they will at least get some of their money back.

Good news from Companies House...https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC149117/filing-history

On the 26th August 2025 the Club officially came out of Administration. Time to change a line in the Proclaimer's song to 'Administration no more..' and fairly soon close this thread,

Time for this to go from the bottom of ICTFC.com then😁

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC149117/filing-history

Dawn and Alan Savage now appointed as Directors.

.......and finally....'Registered office address changed from C/O Bdo Llp, 2 Atlantic Square 31 York Street Glasgow G2 8NJ to Sarens Psg Stadium Stadium Road Inverness IV1 1FF on 9 September 2025'.....

Just got this note from the club:

Mr Alan Savage will be holding a press conference, to give an update on the club, at 11am on Friday 12^th September in the boardroom at the Sarens PSG Stadium. 

This is a link to the Press Conference:

Ah brilliant!

Does this mean we can have our 5 points back now?

Sky showed us being top of the table when they did the results and tables earlier: they’d forgotten the 5 point penalty!

19 hours ago, Robert said:

Sky showed us being top of the table when they did the results and tables earlier: they’d forgotten the 5 point penalty!

Yup - that's why I took the league table widget off the side of the page. The third-party we use has not deducted the 5 points. Our internal tables are correct though.

Personally, I have never seen the point of deducting 15 points in the season you were struggling and 5 in the season where you were trying to get back on your feet, it seems like an unnecessary slap when you least need it ... but it's what happened to others too. Just happy that this early in the season, Kells and the boys have done so well that the 5 points is merely a footnote now. We are on an even keel with everyone and will be at the right end of the table come May 2026.

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

Personally, I have never seen the point of deducting 15 points in the season you were struggling and 5 in the season where you were trying to get back on your feet, it seems like an unnecessary slap when you least need it ... but it's what happened to others too. Just happy that this early in the season, Kells and the boys have done so well that the 5 points is merely a footnote now. We are on an even keel with everyone and will be at the right end of the table come May 2026.

I get where you’re coming from, but I think the points deduction is a fair and necessary punishment. When a club goes into administration, it’s often because they’ve been spending beyond their means. That overspending can give them an artificial advantage in the short term – signing players they couldn’t otherwise afford, competing at a level they shouldn’t be able to, and in effect “buying” success.

Meanwhile, other clubs who live within their budgets and make tough decisions to stay financially stable are the ones who suffer. If there wasn’t a strong penalty like a points deduction, there would be nothing stopping clubs from gambling with money they don’t have, knowing they could just write off debts if it went wrong.

The deduction isn’t about kicking a club while it’s down, it’s about maintaining fairness across the league and deterring financial mismanagement.

I thought that Scotty was mostly talking about the 5 point deduction in the second season - in which case I agree with him.

Depending on timing, the administrators will be in charge or may even have done their job, so all the cost-cutting and restructuring will be under way or complete.

The 5 points deduction is simply kicking someone while they're down.

I do sometimes wonder how fair it is for us to come out of Administration in the manner we have. Now having the biggest budget in the league by quite some amount it would seem. The 5 point deduction helps balance the ability to be able to do that a little bit I suppose.

Edited September 14, 2025Sep 14 by ICTPaisley

The 5pt in the second season is to try and deter clubs from using admin as an 'easy' option to wipe debt...e.g. if they're 15+ points clear of relegation, they trigger admin, wipe the debt and start clean the following season.

For me the whole administration thing is a poor system, and not just for football clubs. The number of businesses that go into admin, then the same owners (or relatives/friends) buy it on the cheap and keep going, is ridiculous.

The only 'fair' way to do it in football, IMO, is for any club entering administration to be dropped to the bottom of the pyramid and effectively have to start again.

Must admit I thought from last week’s Press Conference that this had already happened but confirmation that the club now controls the car parks:

ICTFC

Club Statement - ICTFC

Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club is delighted to confirm that the Club has today secured full control over 8 acres of the surrounding car park. Chairman Alan Savage would like to extend his

14 hours ago, Robert said:

Must admit I thought from last week’s Press Conference that this had already happened but confirmation that the club now controls the car parks:

ICTFC

Club Statement - ICTFC

Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club is delighted to confirm that the Club has today secured full control over 8 acres of the surrounding car park. Chairman Alan Savage would like to extend his

Glad to hear it is all now a lot less convoluted.

Like many I am sure, I still have a tinge of sadness at giving up my (nominal) shares as I wanted to pass them down to my kid, but without all of us doing that they would be worthless bits of paper and there would be no club. Having said that, the likes of Morrison, Cameron and others have had to give up significantly more on paper and having done so, it is good to see Alan Savage acknowledge that they were in the club for the right reasons but made a few bad choices (and - it has to be said - one monumental error in personnel decisions). I spoke with RM back in 2020 when trying to get some form of link going with TFC and I definitely felt he was fan first and chairman second so for AS to say what he has said publicly is very healing.

Onwards and upwards #TogetherNESS

And to think, if Savage had accepted the same offer many months prior instead of making a grab for the 100% shareholding, then we could have managed it all without the pain of administration.

18 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

And to think, if Savage had accepted the same offer many months prior instead of making a grab for the 100% shareholding, then we could have managed it all without the pain of administration.

Aye and still be stuck with Ferguson

48 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

And to think, if Savage had accepted the same offer many months prior instead of making a grab for the 100% shareholding, then we could have managed it all without the pain of administration.

Don't think it was as simple as that, but hindsight and whataboutery are wonderful tools!

14 hours ago, IBM said:

Aye and still be stuck with Ferguson

Do you really think paying off Ferguson would have been worse than the cost, damage, and pain of administration?

3 hours ago, CaleyD said:

Do you really think paying off Ferguson would have been worse than the cost, damage, and pain of administration?

If only it would have been as simple as that, a club with no money and heading towards bankruptcy would we have survived? There wasn’t a queue wanting to save the club.

The deal done with previous directors to write off loans, hand over shares and sell back the carparks is the same deal that was on the table in August 2024....so yes, it could have been that simple.

6 hours ago, CaleyD said:

Do you really think paying off Ferguson would have been worse than the cost, damage, and pain of administration?

As I recall there would have been a 6 figure sum payable to Gardner if administration hadn’t happened, and I don’t imagine Alan Savage would have been keen to pay for that with his money.

It wasn’t all about the land deal, it’s also about what Savage was getting for his money, ie partial ownership v full ownership. Nobody would expect him to cough up all the cash to save the club while the other shareholders put in nothing but get the benefit of his money.

18 hours ago, Yngwie said:

As I recall there would have been a 6 figure sum payable to Gardner if administration hadn’t happened.....

That was all online chat/speculation with people guessing at what he was being paid, the nature of his employment/contract, etc. Administration doesn't automatically allow contracts to be torn up, so that would not have been a deciding factor (in and of itself) on whether he would be due money.

18 hours ago, Yngwie said:

It wasn’t all about the land deal, it’s also about what Savage was getting for his money, ie partial ownership v full ownership. Nobody would expect him to cough up all the cash to save the club while the other shareholders put in nothing but get the benefit of his money.

I agree it wasn't all about the land deal. If it had been, then Savage would have taken the terms agreed in August 2024. He clearly decided that circa 90% of the shareholding wasn't going to be enough and wanted it all.

Also, it's a little disengenuous to say that other shareholders put in nothing. The very fans, whose small shareholdings were demanded, put in a heck of a lot of money/value through purchases, donations, crowdfunding, time etc....on top of the money they paid for shares in the first instance.

At the end of the day, I ask myself a simple question as I am getting way too old for complicated things! Would there have been a club today if we did not go down this route? My answer - and I accept others may have a different or more nuanced answer - is NO.

As much as I did not enjoy giving up my shares, I am happy I still have a club to support rather than a historical and worthless document that I could frame on my wall. And let's be honest here, we may have had hundreds of shareholders, but the reality is that only a handful of them truly mattered in the decision-making process. Those of us with anything under 1000 shares simply did it so we could say we were a part of the club or to put money into the club to kick-start our history. The real power brokers were, and always have been, those with tens or hundreds of thousands of shares.

A year on, we have Alan Savage at the helm, someone who has pumped money in before and who did so again in the last year. We have a CEO who knows and loves the club and has done so since the very day it was formed, and we have a manager who is winning games again. On top of that we have businesses coming back to a more open club, we have fans feeling the club is more receptive to them, and we have a Supporters Trust who have shown what is possible - regardless of shareholding - when they are allowed to work with the club and not simply have to be one of many dissenting voices.

Are things perfect? I am sure they are not. After so much toxicity over recent years, there are bound to be puddles here and there, but we are headed in the right direction. The real proof of the pudding will be when we next face challenges. As fans, we will still have a voice, but we wont necessarily have a say ... but as noted above, did we really have a say anyway when the bigger shareholders all voted the same way?