snorbens_caleyman

Oi! That's my wife's family that you are talking about What the **** did you feed it to end up with hypodermics stuck into the Ochils??? And you missed out the smell from the McCowans toffee factory next door. Now sadly closed down. Could always tell when they were making raspberry.

Does anyone ask him how we've managed to improve without him, and with a supposedly weakened squad?

Well, I've just wasted an hour looking for an answer to this General answer is that if assets are discovered after an estate has been closed, the estate is re-opened and its value recalculated, because there could be tax implications and so on. In this case, though, the asset is valueless, in monetary terms. But I can't see any simple way in which the company (club) can cancel them. Nor do I think that someone could simply write in and say "I'm snorbens' heir - you can have them." As far as I can see, there has to be a properly-authorised legally-recognised personal representative of the deceased before anything at all can be done. OTOH, this must happen all the time, so there must be well-trodden ways of dealing with it. I'm sure that someone here can tell us.

From the BBC stats and website, it looks to me that we have thrown away another one that we should have won. 11 shots, only 1 on target. Only consolation is that Annan were beaten too.

Maybe the Jambos would be interested in a new badge?

Your AI has some strange ideas about the markings on the pitch And what bridge has it brought in?

I know it says "player", but Scott Kellacher deserves something.

The BBC reports Savage as saying that Lionel Nessie will be reinstated as mascot. That seals it for me!

Which is not consistent with the public statement of Savage's offer, in which he appears to say that his offer is conditional on these things being done. My view is that Savage's statement was a shortened summary of his aims. I leave out detail to keep my postings short - honest I do! - and I suspect that Savage's public statement does the same. What will count from a financial and legal point of view is what's in his formal offer, not what's in his public statement. For example, no one could expect to acquire 100% of the club's shares inside two weeks. His formal offer may well say that he will start trying to acquire them if his offer is accepted, and that his offer will lapse if he doesn't achieve 100% - or whatever his acceptable level of shareholding is - within a defined timeframe. His funding of the club until the end of the season is independent of his offer to take over.

As my final word tonight, on the assumption that Savage is no fool, then to paraphrase myself... ... I am sure that he knew that

Savage's statement says that his offer is open until 11 April. It does not say that all the shares have to be transferred by then. His four conditions may appear to be independent of each other, but they're not. You'd be unwise to agree to any one of them unless you knew that the other three were also agreed. And I am sure that he knows that....

Didn't someone work out that the small shareholders accounted for around 5% of the shareholding? You might not be top of the mailing list

6-0 now! Kelty down to 10 men. Could be 5 away wins in the league today

Don't knock it! That's two assists he has now. Obviously very influential when on the bench.

Has he actually said that he wants people to invest in FC Inverness (his company)? I can't remember seeing that... but there's been so much. I was wondering if there were any tax advantages through owning shares via a company rather than personally. I came across Business Asset Disposal Relief, which could potentially reduce the amount of CGT that you pay on disposal of assets. (If they have increased in value, of course!) There may be other things - I thought of limited liability, reduction in dealing/transfer costs when transferring shares/the company, corporation tax vs higher rates of income tax, etc. But I just don't know because it's not my field and I've never been in that position. Anyone know?

I'd still be curious to know if we suffer more and/or worse injuries than other teams. Seems to be an injury crisis every season - even when we didn't have a thin and inexperienced squad.

He is NOT from BDO. He is ex-BDO - left them in 2015 - although he "lined up" BDO for this job when others apparently thought it was too risky. The report appears to be based on a Wyness Shuffle podcast. Can you guys sue the P&J for breach of copyright or IP - or is it public domain once it's out there?

The incentive would have been to show that they could achieve a quick result. Which would be good for attracting future business of this type, which, I fear, will be inevitable. I think they would have preferred this. I believe that what we have witnessed is what you find in any negotiation. People holding out as long as possible to see what they can get out of it. Not folding before "the last minute" - the first "deadline" is never the last one. Call it brinkmanship, or chicken, or just plain stubbornness. Not until they believe that they are staring down the barrel of a gun will they concede. In this case it was the fact that there were no offers that was the catalyst for action.

They'd start about 2 or 3 years ago Seriously, though, it's an intriguing idea. Especially if that person was of an age where they might be considering what sort of legacy they would eventually like to leave. Although they might equally be thinking "Sod it! I'm out of here.".

The security has nothing to do with the land around the stadium. The loan is secured against "ALL [the club's] PROPERTY, UNDERTAKING, ASSETS (INCLUDING UNCALLED CAPITAL) AND RIGHTS OWNED NOW OR IN THE FUTURE". https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC149117/filing-history/MzQwNzI2NTY2NWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0 I'm not a financial or business person, but it looks to me as though that means that any asset of the club - from money (we have none), incoming transfer fees (we have none), or the stadium itself (oh dear) - could be used to repay the loan.

I don't think either is anywhere near big enough, especially if you take into account the need for parking. Highland Cricket Club wouldn't be pleased about loss of Fraser Park, and Walker Park was barely big enough for a pitch - let alone a stadium - when I played there as a kid. Plus, as CB said re the UHI, there would be traffic problems on the surrounding small roads. Would groundsharing with Clach be an option to consider? Although again there would be traffic and parking issues.

On the subject of no one contacting Propco (?) about the land around the stadium, I guess we can't blame the administrators for that. The lease on that land is not owned by the club/company, and must therefore be outside of the adminstrators' remit. They could put a potential buyer in touch. And maybe informally encourage a deal, if it would influence the sale of the club. But anything else would be out of their hands.

Funnily enough, I was just checking to see if there was any recent news from or about him, in case he's making another attempt. I couldn't see anything. If a new owner emerges, it will become public knowledge who they are. I can see why potential buyers wouldn't want their identities splashed in public until a deal is struck. But I would have thought that, with appropriate NDAs in place, their identities could and probably should be available to the major creditors and major shareholders, who are not necessarily the same people. Are there any reasons why not?

The company - in this case the administrators - makes a repayment proposal to the creditors. Say 25% of what is owed. You don't have to be looking for a buyer for the company - you could be in adminstration and propose a CVA just to clear debts. But in our case we do need a buyer to keep the club going. They will have worked out the CVA proposal based on what a buyer might be willing to fund, and on what the company can afford. Bit of a dilemma here - you want to make a proposal that the creditors will accept, but you don't want to make it too big so that it puts off potential buyers. The CVA then has to be accepted by creditors representing at least 75% by value of the company's debts. This is why Morrison could veto it, because he is owed more than 25% of the money outstanding. From a quick look at the document published a while ago by BDO, no other single creditor is owed more than 25%. It looked as though Cameron and Munro together might be owed more than 25%, and after that you can put together a few different groupings of creditors to exceed the 25%. Don's point about Morrison's security is interesting. I came across this on a financial services website: "Secured creditors are not bound by the agreement". I assume that this means, as Don was hinting, that his security would "trump" the CVA, and that he could insist on being repaid in full regardless of whether the CVA was accepted. (But since he has the power of veto on the CVA, it wouldn't be accepted if he wanted all his money back. He really has the club by the short and curlies.) The same website also said this: "No investigation into directors’ conduct A CVA avoids company liquidation and, therefore, requires no investigation of directors’ conduct leading up to insolvency. Any accusations of wrongful trading or improper practices are avoided". I am not sure how far back such an investigation would go. But it might make some people pause for thought!

And, sadly, it's not "If you have...", it's "Since we have..."