CaleyD

From info on companies house, it looks like the £450k loans given at start of the season and now converted to shares were..... £250k - David F Sutherland £50k - David Cameron £150k - £10k from each of the 15 Muirfield Mills members My understanding is that this is money long since spent and recent requests for assistance are in addition to this.

Yes, and Davie Balfour is taking care of that option should it be needed.

Getting things back on track.... Regardless of who is on the board going forward, an EGM is required to properly elect that board, sort out the rules issue and ensure the organisation is legal and compliant. If those currently claiming entitlement to be on the board believe they are the right people to do that, then they can stand for election along with anyone else who steps forward. Denying the members that right whilst continuing to defiantly operate in abeyance is not only damaging the society, it's damaging individual reputations. An EGM is going to happen, that cannot be prevented. Better for the society though that they call it and it happens in a timely fashion, than cause further delay and damage to the society (and themselves) by dragging it out.

Caley Jags Together is simply the operating name for ICT Supporters Society Ltd. It is the same organisation that it has always been.

Just a point of clarity for DoofersDad. The two sets of rules I posted were those registered and those which SHOULD have been registered as they were approved by a General Meeting in 2012. I have attached the original rules which were the previously registered set in force until the 8th January 2018 (and would likely be considered, legally, to still be in force). Original_Rules.pdf

Sometimes humour and sarcasm don't translate well into written word. You should have considered some emojis to stop people thinking this might be a serious post ?

None

Even at Development level Ross County's success is "bought". Last season's team was largely shipped in and not developed by them at all.

It'll be the steam off all the pee that's keeping the chill off ?

Toilets!!! Is it not just pee where you stand/sit?

Can't believe how much you people in the cheap seats get spoiled...and still you complain. It's like the Peasants Revolt all over again ?

I prepared a document back in 2011 which was made available to the members at the time and before they were asked to vote on the implementation at the GM in 2012....attached for those who like a little bedtime reading!! ST Rules Comparison.pdf

Two points...... 1. That board is not constitutional, even by the newly registered ruleset (see point 2). As per the recently registered rules... I've removed irrelevant points from the quoted text, but a full copy of the rules are attached...File 180108_ictss_rules.pdf. (As previous requests for copies of anything from the society board were not met, I paid to get these directly from the FCA.) As per the message from CJT we have 6 Directors. 3 Elected, 2 External (Appointed) and 1 Co-opted. That would appear to satisfy the rule that there must be a minimum of 5 directors...however! The 3 elected are fine and the one co-opted is within the rules for no more than one third co-opted. However, as per rule 64...external directors should be considered to be in addition to the number of directors specified in the rules, and not part of. This means that the board make-up is not constitutional. Even if you argue that the two external directors can be included in the number then the board is still not constitutional as (per rule 64) the total number of external and co-opted board members must be in the minority and that is not the case with the current board. I also fail to see how they can invite people to fill an additional 4 positions without calling an EGM to have them (and/or others) elected properly. 2. The rules registered with the FCA have not been approved by a General Meeting of the organisation and differ from the rules approved by the AGM in 2012. There has been no resolution at any GM since then to approve any alternative rules. The two main differences are that the number required for an operational board has been reduced (previously between 6 and 12, it now shows between 5 and 10)....and the rule that allowed for members to demand a performance audit of the society has been removed. Given the recent goings on, I find this to be too much of a coincidence. Copy of the rules as agreed by the society AGM in 2012 are also attached to allow people to do their own comparison. File 120817_ictss_rules.pdf As can be seen from the attached, that submission of the rules has been passed to the FCA with a declaration that they have been adopted as per the society's rules. That is clearly not the case and you can all draw your own conclusions as to the implications of that and decide how you proceed from here.

I'm just offering up one hypothesis that fits what we know about the situation. Perhaps it's Muirfield Mills who want to secure any investment (from themselves) against an asset? Given talks about wanting to cut maximum voting rights to 10% per person/organisation then buying more shares would make little sense to them...even though they are trying to encourage others to go that route!

Ummmm.....Sevco just securing lending from a major financial institute by using their car park as security would indicate that you might be a tad out of touch with the current commercial climate.

Charles is right.....until the club have the lease and stadium back in their ownership, they have nothing against which to secure any borrowing. Could this by why the board were so desperate to get it pushed through and to remove Tulloch as the middleman....even if that has ended up with us paying a higher rent? Would it be reasonable to read between the lines that getting the deal done to allow for further investment actually means allowing them to borrow against the asset? Surely we're not about to go full circle and land right back in the mess that started all this!

Uh oh....you mentioned the "T" word ?

You haven't factored in the cost of bank interest...which rent charged over the years didn't cover and (along with addition of the North/South stands) resulted in the debt being held by the trust rising to a figure I believe to have been in excess of £4 Million (and approaching 5). Whilst the debt removed from the club was circa £2.6 Million, the cost including interest to Tullochs has been substantially more. I'm not going to get into the whole argument about whether or not they've had their pound of flesh, but even as someone who had numerous run ins with the club and Tullochs over the years about the whole thing, I can see that the club have clearly had the better end of the deal. One other thing. Muirfield Mills have never given a satisfactory answer as to why the leases were moved from the Trust to Tulloch....something that coincided with them taking control of the trust (for only £1 according to Dougie at the last AGM...and not challenged). They issued a great smokescreen document at the AGM, but conveniently skipped an important year in the summary and I don't buy their claim that they don't have the answer to the question.

That agreement was superseded at the AGM when the maximum total allotment of shares for the company was increased to £6 Million. Looking forward to all that money coming in!!

Stage 3 of 5

The last time we got relegated the club handled the situation pretty well and we saw an increase in season ticket sales. Further boosted by healthy half season ticket sales, despite promotion being far from certain at the halfway mark. Key, though, was that the board (back then) didn't just ask fans to put their hands in their pockets, they backed the call with a £1 Million commitment to getting the club back into the SPL (as it was then)....and delivered.

I spotted the following article in the Inverness Courier and can only imagine that Dale & Tommy will be none to happy. This article makes it look like our guys don't know what they are doing and the Chairman has got on the blower to invite others in to bale them out. I'd bet money I'm 100% certain that Dale and/or Tommy will have had a chat with these gents in order to compare notes......something that groundsmen from different clubs (and not just within football) regularly do......and the Chairman couldn't resist another opportunity to latch on to an item he knows nothing about in order to make it look like he and the board are actually doing something. Time for them all to stop undermining the good people still at the club with the constant, worthless posturing and actually start delivering on some of the promises made. Who knows, if they actually started listening to our own, experienced, qualified people instead....they might just get somewhere.