Leaderboard

The letter is addressed to "ALL KNOWN MEMBERS AND CREDITORS". I assume that shareholders are "members" for the purpose of the letter although the letter nowhere refers either to shareholders or shares. I expect that this is a pretty standard letter for these circumstances, but I would have thought it would be helpful to simply state whether or not shareholders are considered to be creditors for this purpose. The letter specifically asks recipients to write to the administrators if they do not consider themselves as creditors. So if shareholders are not considered as creditors, that would seem to suggest that they want shareholders to write to them just to confirm that they are not creditors. That would be patently absurd. I have asked a member of the Supporters Trust Board if they can get clarification on issues surround shareholding. And clearly, the status of the 10%+ voting right of the Trust is also something on which clarity is required. Hopefully the administrators can provide the necessary info in the near future.

We WERE a supplier (of website hosting, internet services, upgrades/updates, and other IT services) but Mr. Rae & Ms. Crook put paid to that, although paid is perhaps not an operative word given the moonlight flit to a German hosting company and several unpaid bills at the time. That has long since ceased to be an issue and to be fair to the previous incumbent of the CEO chair, we never had any dealings with him so neither I or CTO are creditors of ICT. I guess it's all down to the shares. Definitely not going to be filing in any claim on that front. I wrote that £250 off when I spent it. If I am still a shareholder once the dust settles, great. If not, then it may be a case of buying more if we get publicly traded. I guess we wait and see. The best thing I ever got from owning shares in ICT was actually when that letter arrived, and my football daft son said "Wait. Daddy? You own shares in a football club? WOW!" and then looking impressed. That on its own would have been worth the £250!

The question wasn't really about what should happen, or what we would like to happen. It was about the obligations of the administrator. Is he obliged to accept the highest bid, in order to give maximum return to creditors, regardless of the long term implications and intentions of who might be making it? So a short term financial solution might be a long term bad solution for the club.

I would hope Inverness Area Committee Members will soon give comfort to some supporters that there are very strict conditions attached to the 99 year lease granted for football purposes.

Points 1 and 6 I 100% agree with and do think the club will seriously consider, especially if Alan Savage and Charlie Christie remain involved in any capacity once we're out of administration! I, and most on here, seem to agree with Charlie Christie when he suggested/mentioned the 8-8-8 formula at the meeting a week or so before entering administration. It should be achievable imho, we more than certainly have 8 current players who could well be contracted next season. The 8 academy players coming through to the first team worries me as I'm not sure we have 8 ready to make the step up, 4 is perhaps more achievable . And I've banged on consistently that we should be utilising the Highland League market because I am fairly certain that there ARE players that can make the step up the leagues, though I'd suspect we'd need to wait until their out of contract unless they are available for a very cheap price! So we could easily operate on a slightly smaller budget than we currently have and still be successful imho especially if Scott Kellacher got the right players in because I certainly like his style of play .