CaleyD

I get what you're saying and understand where you're coming from, but (and I appreciate this will sound like sentimental twaddle) like a few players who have passed through the doors he found himself drawn to the place.....the club, the fans and the area. I told people at the time of the whole "is he staying, is he going" debate that the guy didn't want to leave. He knew he would move on at some point, but he wanted to do another year with us, and I believe he was willing to sign a 1 year extension to his contract to make that happen, and so ICT would not be having to release him on a free further down the line. Look at what he says in his interview......it was only a couple of people at the club he ever had any problem with. Nobody in the dressing room resented him. Remember all the stories of major rifts between him and Black? They hated each other so much that Black went to his wedding in Romania!!! As is usual with ICT, we rarely (if ever) get a straight or totally honest answer/picture on any scenario and fans are often led a merry dance and left believing things which are just not true. Perhaps the club would be best reminded of the story of the little boy that cried wolf. People should go back and read over the forum posts at the time of Marius' departure and they will see that a few posters called the scenario exactly as it is being played out now.

"Stuck With You" :D

Surprised nobody picked up on the song I played after full-time last week

You made a request, I told you it wasn't possible....I never said you couldn't make it though. I'll happily play (if I have it and it's suitable) any tune requested for pre-match and/or half-time....just not for the tune the team come out too.

I'd imagine he'll not be with us after January, following the necessary firesale that we'll need to have to pay the money the club are due Niculae.

Where exactly did I say people couldn't make requests?

Pity it looks more like Michael Owen than Ross Tokely.

The tune used is the managers choice, and would only be changed if he requested it.

Cameraman will be located on the scaffold structure opposite the main stand....tell him to wrap up warm and take an umbrella (and a flask of something hot) as it offers zero protection from the elements. Anyone doing updates will probably be located in the press box area in the main stand...one of the outside seats. These are a bit further up in the main stand and do offer some protection from any rain, but not much from the wind.

IHE, I've not forgotten about the legal costs....nor have I forgotten the fact that whilst the money from Orion was intended to offset the cost of Marius, he got 12% of the club in return....but I can kind of let that one slide as even without it we should have broken even (at worst) before the whole legal wrangle kicked off.

I'm not participating in this debate, but just want to make a statement of fact. Tullochs have never had a MAJORITY shareholding which, by definition, is over 50%. They are, however the BIGGEST or MAJOR shareholders and the most they have ever had is around 42% of ICT. The Company reverted from public to private status to allow Tullochs' last equity uptake which brought them above the 29.9% which is the maximum allowed in a plc before you have to go through fairly complicated and radical manoeuvres. I have a feeling that Tullochs' current holding will be less than 40odd% since it will have been diluted by the 12% Alan Savage reveived at the time Marius Niculae came to Inverness. As for what it needs to CONTROL the club, I cannot recollect whether, since reversion to private status, it still requires a 75% vote to change the Articles of Association or whatever. I got my terminology incorrect/the wrong way round, what I should have perhaps said was that Tulloch are the largest shareholder. Depending on which definition of "controlling" shareholder you use then it could be argued they already have that as their holding is sufficient to block any move by anyone else and it also affords them control of the Board of Directors....and although sufficient shares are available to dilute their shareholding to below a controlling share, as the Board have the right to veto any sale of shares, and are controlled by Tulloch...then they are not likely to allow that situation to occur. The point I'm making is that despite past statements about it not being healthy for the club to be under the control of a single person/company, that's basically what we have at the moment and the current situation would give a good excuse to move in and further strengthen that position by blackmailing persuading people that a further change is required to the companies status to allow them to take a shareholding in excess of 50% and change the articles to afford them the power to do as they please without the need to consult any of the other shareholders. He's perfectly capable of such a move...and most of us will remember his throwing the toys out of the pram when someone tried to prevent the current situation before we were all suckered in and he got his own way, company structure was changed, he got ultimate control and he managed to obtain ownership of the stadium at the same time.

He actually only has 250 shares....it's Tullochs who currently have a majority shareholding (they would need 50% +1 share to have a controlling shareholding).

Would certainly give him a good excuse to come in looking for a controlling shareholding.

As I said earlier in the thread, I asked the question at the AGM about whether any money had been set aside and was told it had not been. When asked how we might fund it if things went against us, I was told it would be dealt with if/when it became necessary. Someone else then asked the question about whether or not it should have been mentioned in the accounts (at least as a comment in the Chairmans/Auditors report, and a very nervous auditor skirted around the issue and could only offer a "it was something we talked about and didn't include it" response. I wouldn't have expected anything that said "we expect to lose", but it probably should have been something that was covered off. None of us expect to have accidents/breakdowns (car, household appliances, house itself) etc, but that's no excuse for not having insurance and failing to be prepared "just in case" would be extremely naive....and illegal in terms of motor insurance.

The likes of Imrie and Tokely bring something other than ability to the team....they bring a bit of passion and fight, and I certainly think that those playing in front of Tokely are more confident with him behind them....even if he isn't having the best of games. These players, who can instill a sense of belief in the rest of the squad, will be instrumental in improving our fortunes.

We won't lose money on the Niculae deal itself. 475,000 Euro for selling him 200,000 Sign on fee (half of which we've not paid yet) 100,000 1 year salary (a generous figure above the actual, but allows for any other costs) 142,500 Split of Transfer Fee 442,500 Total His signing also generated a ?275,000 investment from Orion and we got around ?50,000 from his participation in the Euros.....in total, we are at least ?350,000 the better for having had him here....that's a long way from his presence putting us in threat of administration. It's the total and complete mismanagement of the situation that has, and continues, to damage this club. Where has all this money gone? If I was offering an answer I would say a large part of it went on Barrowman signing fee (not to mention his salary), along with the salaries of the 6 or 7 players the club signed last January to try and save face and give Brewster something to work with for the remainder of the season, even though it was clear that it was not the playing personnel that was the problem. Why did the club spend so heavily and freely when they had this whole thing hanging over their heads? Surely te common sense/sensible/business approach would have been to hold this money back.....in fact, was it not negligent of the Board to not do this, and then go one step further and fail to include the potential liability in the last set of accounts, presenting the shareholders with a false impression of the state of the business.

I don't see how his scoring 10 goals will lead us to Administration.....that's the bit I was looking for some reasoning on. Even if you mean the cost of having him hear, I again fail to see how that will lead us to administration, so perhaps some reasoning on that iis what you might want to give.

They are, for the most part, the same group of people. What's more, it's the current board who are continuing the whole saga and making a joke of our club (again). IMO, had Alan Savage not been hounded out of the Chair, then we would not find ourselves in the position we now do....on many fronts. Not a view I always had of the guy, but when he was in the Chair you could at least see that someone upstairs was trying to do something to take the club forward.

Roscoe23.....do you want to back up your claim with some reasoning?

As was mentioned in another thread a couple of weeks back, I asked the question at the club AGM and the Chairman told the meeting that no funds had been set aside and that the club would just do as they have done with other things and deal with it if/when it happens.....well, it's happened, and it'll be interesting to see how it's dealt with!!!

I wonder if Butcher has a large patio at his new house? :(

4-5-1, what evidence have to seen that says that style works at home? No offence intended, but given some of the formations you come up with, you're in no position to be questioning what anyone else has to offer

Yup, that's where we were at.

My opinion......the club never quashed the rumour because it suited them at the time. It made them look like the big shots for landing a signing of Niculae's calibre and increased his value (or gave a higher starting point for discussion) should anyone come sniffing about looking to take him off our hands. Not a bad idea in principle, but unfortunately the minute Sutherland (and others) started bleating to the press that we couldn't afford to keep him then any work that had been done to increase his value was totally undone and completely negated any strength we might have had when it came to negotiations. I'm still of the opinion that the deal that brought Marius here was great for this club, or should have been. Sadly it became more about points scoring, ego and one-upmanship when Savage stepped down and Sutherland was more interested in discrediting him than he was in protecting the interests of ICT.

To be honest, I find the whole thing totally embarrassing and I wish we would just pay up. I don't think, however, that it should be just brushed under the carpet and forgotten about....something we, as fans, seem to be good at. It's about time that those responsible for these kinds of screw-ups are held accountable. We're already ?20k down as a result of the change in exchange rates between then and now, we'll have a legal bill to pay and we're talking about blowing more money by taking it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport....and there's still the case in the courts that could (and I think will) strip us of another wedge of cash. It's very easy for the board to sit there making these decision knowing it's not their pocket that's having to cough up the cost and if it was any other kind of business then the shareholders would have the directors out on their ear....or worse, suing them for their incompetence. Will we get anything more than a faceless statement on the official website? Do the Board have the balls to face the fans and explain this whole sorry mess? It's been so long since the board addressed the fans on anything I'm starting to wonder if they even exist or if someone just sits upstairs using a magic 8 ball to make the decisions.