CaleyD

BDO are the club at the moment.

It would, yes....as would any sub lease the club has on the car parks. Here's a question to ponder. What's the monetary value in the car parks to those who currently hold the lease? Especially when the land use is tied to the stadium...i.e. primarily for the provision of parking to support stadium operations. Then ask yourself why those who control the car parks would want to jeopardise the main income they get from it...no club, no sub lease, no income. I have no doubt that Alan Savage is doing what he thinks is the right thing, just the same as David Cameron, Ross Morrison and anyone else involved in any way think they are doing the right thing. The problem is, they don't all agree on what that right thing is, and we're all left trying to work it out based on very limited information and understanding of the politics at play.

No monetary value, but they certainly aren't worthless when it comes to control...and as we are witnessing...making the decision on who else may or may not hold that control going forward.

Common Good Fund owns the land, what's being talked about with car parks and stadium is who holds the lease/s. Should the club liquidate, it would for the Common Good Fund to negotiate/agree a lease with whomever was running a "new" club setup. I don't personally believe the car park situation is any real issue. The club already has a sub tenancy on it, and I understand the terms of that are very favourable and allow the club to use them as they please (within relevant planning rules/restrictions etc.). A prime example of that is the gym building that was put there! Everyone has become focused on it because that's all that's been talked about for the last 6 months. I'm not suggesting for a moment that liquidation should be taken lightly or that it wouldn't be without challenges, but it would provide the least complicated foundations to build from again.

I had that thought briefly, but the shareholding was always going to be bigger hurdle involving a few more people.

As I had said previously, the only realistic way to start with a clean sheet is liquidation and starting again from the very bottom. The handing over of shares will likely be a problem connected to who would be handing over shares to who, and the loans issue about who would be taking control "on the cheap". I genuinely believe the club will continue, and the best hope of unpicking all the personality related issues is the liquidation route...but that relies on none of them being highest bidder on any assets. The Just Giving campaign showed how deep fans pockets were, so I don't see fan ownership as a realistic option unless there's an Ann Budge type person willing to fund it in the interim. We may see one or two of the interested parties break silence if looking for support in a liquidation buy out scenario.

Yeah, that was what I was getting at I will qualify it by saying that, for the most part, the local football reporters I crossed paths with were decent. It tends to be the policy of newspapers themselves and not the individuals when it comes to stuff like this.

Apologies @CELTIC1CALEY3, that opening part of my reply came across really arsey....what I meant was, is their a specific part you wanted clarified.

Not sure what needs clarifying? A journalist (actually more than one it seems) phoned David Cameron and asked him if he still owned the Ironworks. He said no and was then challenged on whether that was true...he then (not so) politely told them to do one. It's now transpired that the sale of the building had been concluded, but instead of publishing a story to say they were wrong, they've quietly updated a previous article. They set the dogs loose on the man, fueling conspiracies and questions around how this deal might impact his dealings with ICTFC, among other things. The right thing to do would have been to publish a new article admitting they were wrong....maybe even an apology?

It's been confirmed by P&J that the sale did complete and the Brick administrators are in control of the property. They edited an existing online article rather than publish a new one saying they were wrong...I wonder why

There will be a few things at play with the TV situation. 1. BBC will be under no obligation to show every team. 2. It costs them way more to send a camera/broadcasting crew to Inverness than anywhere else. Even more so since we removed all the TV infrastructure (camera towers etc). 3. Like it or not, we're just not an interesting team for TV. We've no 'derby' opponents in this league and we've not been far enough up the table to be a contender at any point. Nothing to draw viewing figures. I suspect BBC will get another pick for the postponed game, and they'll be holding that and the other remaining slot to see what happens in the last couple of weeks. At least one of those will go to a top of the table battle, but there's a chance the other is us. If nothing else exciting is happening and we're 'safe' then they might want to cover "The Great Escape" story...or if we're not safe and it comes down to the wire!! At this level, I don't believe there's any extra income for clubs who are televised, so no financial benefit. In fact, being on TV has the opposite effect as it generally stops people attending and reduces gate income etc. So if we do get a TV game, we want an away one

After preferential creditors (HMRC, employees (or ex), administrator etc.) are paid, then a valid floating charge would be paid before anyone else. If the floating charge is deemed invalid, he'd get the same pence in the pound level as other non secured creditors. His percentage of the debt is such that he could vote down any CVA, and he'd be able to do that regardless of the floating charge. He may do that if he thinks liquidation would produce more than any offered investment/purchase used to fund a CVA.

That's not correct. 1. A floating charge places him ahead of unsecured creditors, but behind preferential creditors (and secured creditors, but we don't have any of them). 2. It only entitles him to the proceeds of the sale of assets after higher ranking priorities have been satisfied. Under no scenario is he simply handed the stadium. It doesn't, but the administrator is legally bound to check all these things out. The catch 22 is that if RM is going to get less from any sale of the club/assets as a result of the floating charge being invalid, then he may look to make up the shortfall in any agreement he considers for the car parks.

He has no priority over the lease the stadium sits on because it is not a transferable asset and cannot be sold.

I am by no means defending the actions and decisions of those that landed us where we are. What is important right now, though, is how we get out of it. I will wager one thing, none of the parties involved are making money from this...other than the administrators and solicitors!

That's not my evaluation of the situation. There's no argument that the car parks are under the control of RM & DC. Also, as far as I am aware, the club have never directly owned or held the lease for the 'Bermuda Triangle', but they did have permission to use it...my understanding being that this was done to satisfy the need for additional parking when the stadium capacity was increased. I'm not even certain it's held directly by the propco. As for the ground lease for the area occupied by the stadium, the buildings, and the other tangible assets of the club, these are entirely under the control of the administrator at this stage. A charge does not give the lender control of the asset on which it is secured...in much the same way as a mortgage lender has no control over a persons house. What it does do is entitle them to the proceeds of any sale up to the value they are owed, before any other creditor are paid. The floating charge would have become a fixed charge the moment club went into administration. This is important as it means that RM has no direct claim on any assets acquired after that date...assets can include things like merchandise, players (or proceeds from the sale thereof), ticket income etc. This happens to allow a company to continue trading during administration without creating a further legal minefield. We also need to keep in mind that the administrator is there to act in the interest of the creditors and not the club, the fans, the community, or any consultants. For now, they are taking a position that keeping the club going gives the creditors the best chance of getting (at least some of) their money back. If/when they get to the stage where they no longer believe that's the case and the company (club) is no longer viable, the sale of assets begins... liquidation... however, for the reasons stated above, the stadium lease would not be for sale. The lease for the both the car parks and the stadium cannot be transferred to another entity without the consent of the landlord. In the case of the car parks, the entity is the propco and not the directors. In the case of the stadium site, the entity is IT&CFC Ltd. If the leaseholding entity is struck off, the lease effectively gets cancelled and HC/CGF are free to do with the land as they please. The above is, as far as I can ascertain, the facts of the situation, and are verifiable. The rest of your post gets into the realms of speculation and opinion, which I don't want to get in to.

Just as a wee point of note. The journalists don't write the headlines. The reason we see so many 'clickbaity' headlines is because they achieve exactly that...clicks...and with the demise of print media, clicks are what pays the bills/wages. It's the modern version of the billboard, just far more prolific!

I'm confident there will be life after administration, and what it will look like has very little to do with the current public perceived car park scenario. As I said before, I'm not hopeful that we'll get to a point of agreeing a CVA with creditors, regardless of the car park situation, because there's still the hurdle of shareholding/control for any new investor. We're being fed the line that the car parks need to go back to the club to improve the likelihood of a sale, but if liquidation is the more likely scenario then it all being under one company (the club) increases the likelihood of a buyer with more interest in developing the area than developing the club being interested. RM and DC have already said they would be willing to do a deal with/speak to any new/potential owner or investor, so it's not really an obstacle to a sale in terms of cost to them, it just means less money to the club and less for creditors (and who are the main creditors?) from CVA/Liquidation. It does also mean that they (RM & DC) are not hindered by having to accept the highest bid and could (maybe) ensure the lease doesn't end up in the hands of someone not interested in the club. Is it possible they're all just being cnuts and looking out for themselves? Yes. However, there is also a possibility that they are also looking to try and protect the clubs future. Just because they may be at odds with the way AS is doing things doesn't make them the bad guys...and vice versa. Knowing all parties involved, I don't believe any of them want to screw over the club, but as has been the frustration since the club came into being (and before), we would be so much better off if they could find a way to work together.

Ross Morrison bought in to it using his money and he, as a private individual, holds the interest there. The fact he was also a club director has no legal baring on that, and gives the club no rights to have had any say/representation in the transaction. The club gave up the master lease/s as part of the various moves that were taken around 2001 to remove almost £2.5 million of debt from the club.

The car parks were acquired* by Morrison and Cameron from a third party, not the club, and they were NOT acquired from Tulloch, despite what has been reported. More accurately, they took control of the company that held/holds the lease. There was no transfer of lease, so no legal obligation for the company to be offered to the club. We all know the club could not afford it anyway and, at the time, most people would have been happy to see club directors purchase it as opposed to an unknown/unconnected party. In short, I don't think there's anything for the administrator to pursue here, other than agreement for a reasonable (to all) sub lease or sale of the company holding the lease to a new buyer/investor in the club. The security held by Ross Morrison is not (at least directly) related to the above transaction. Where I do think the administrator will have a strong case is the timing of the security being put in place. There are pretty strict rules about how and when securities can be done and, as was said in the interview, this falls within the challenge period they can use. As Scott Young was the directors signatory on those documents, there's at least still someone in place at the club who has knowledge of what went on. This would not remove Morrisons claim, but it would mean he was no longer a priority creditor. That may not be in the club's best interests for getting him to cooperate with a CVA. I'm not hopeful of us exiting this via a CVA. The main reason goes back to the challenge of any new investor obtaining a controlling shareholding under the current structure. The cost of obtaining that shareholding vs the cost of taking the hit (the Rangers route) and starting again at the bottom is, in my opinion, why interested parties will be wanting to pick over future budgets. Fans need to be ready and organised for that scenario, especially if they want any hope of retaining the voting rights held by the Supporters trust, as there would be no obligation for a new owner to honour that if a CVA cannot be agreed.

It's also important to highlight specifically that should someone gain a controlling stake, then the Supporters Trust voting right is essentially worthless. As it stands they could work with other shareholders on important issues to ensure correct decisions are made. e.g. such a relationship would be required to vote a fan representative on to the board. In a scenario where someone has a controlling stake, such a thing would be entirely at their whim. Even if every other shareholder was to give the Supporters Trust a proxy, they would still be powerless in almost every voting scenario.* It's now or never for the Supporters Trust and fans if they want to protect the current position and have a chance of improving it in future. *The exception being votes thay require more than a simple majority, such as special resolutions, changes to the companies articles and such like, where they could work with others to block undesirable changes.

When it comes to the counting of shares the Supporters Trust voting right means nothing more than the 108 shares that the right is attached to. It is ONLY when those shares are used to vote that they carry the 10% powers assigned to them. This is why it is challenging for the Supporters Trust to do things like call an EGM, nominate someone to the board etc, as these are all moves that require a specific minimum shareholding in the first instance. I'm only presenting a possible scenario under which the statement from the club could be correct in its "majority" claim, and not making any assertion on the likelihood.

A 50% +1 shareholding is required for it to be "majority". The Supporters Trust situation does not change that because they have a "Voting Right" and not a "Shares Right". This only becomes effective when votes are being cast. There are approx 4,000,000 issued shares at present and the board can take that up to 6,000,000 (assuming the resolution was renewed appropriately at an AGM in the last couple of years). If the new investor were to purchase those shares, that would give them a 33% holding. If they were to be given control of the shares sitting with the Football Trust (about 730,000, currently controlled by Muirfield Mills), then they would only need to acquire about 270,000 further shares to get to 50%. Not an insurmountable task. As for dealing with existing directors' loans. That could be taken care of by offering them shares/equity in the parent company, foregoing any claim to money from the battery farm etc.

Devastating news and my thoughts are with his family at this time. It's a hard one to process and as much as the fecker could make life tough for those running the forum at times, it was impossible to dislike him. As with others, I have so many memories and so many stories. Although I'm not sure all of them are for sharing If I had a stamp, I'd lick it in his honour at the match tonight. Rest well you loveable, difficult, old barsteward.

I've kept relatively silent (publicly) on this whole thing, but I sent the following email to the Supporters Trust earlier. Ultimately it is a decision for each individual to make on whether to buy season tickets and merchandise, but they should be FULLY informed on what that means and the risks involved. Unless the supporters' trust has had sight of and verified that a deal is in place (and if they do, tell us), then it's irresponsible for them to be encouraging people to make a purchase. They wouldn't support a boycott for fear of the legal implications, but seem happy enough to put a call out to buy and have fans risk their money?