CaleyD

Financially, they are self cancelling, but when people use those figures to create a picture of how people ran/run things, then they take on other significance. The board have not "come in" new to this. The Muirfield Mills group have had representation on, and a hand in, the decisions of the board for a number of years....so nothing should be new to them in regards how money was spent, or other things done. Again I make the point....if the playing budget has been cut by the same amount as the expected drop in revenue, and the £450k already "gifted" cancels out the additional "loss"....why are we still looking for handouts? Have costs risen elsewhere? Has the playing budget not been cut as much as claimed/planned? Did the club get the projected revenues wrong? We've been told that cuts are being made and income is being increased....but the numbers aren't backing that up. As a man of science, I thought you would be more disposed to looking at and testing the evidence that presents and not being lead by any sleight of hand or word that accompanies a performance! Kingsmills is right, if we had done as we did before and kept the squad as was in order to make a push straight back to the Premiership, then we could have expected a £1 Million "hole". What we are seeing though is the removal of the expected hole (by cutting the playing budget) and the emergence of another....for which there is no given explanation by the club. In response to your aside. People are free to make of my posts what they will, outsiders or otherwise, they have done for years. I ask no questions and make no point on here that I have not, or would not make directly elsewhere....never have....at any particular time. However, at particular times, those running the club have been more disposed to open, honest and direct communication (bringing with it the courtesy of trust) which has removed the need for the use of more public arenas.

You do know that it was IHE who coined that phrase? Which speaks volumes for it's credibility ?

See my post in response to Charles Bannerman. If the figures provided by the Manager and Chairman are to be believed, then there should be no additional deficit as a result of us being relegated. If we had a million pound, or someone was willing to bank roll that spending, in a push to get back to the premiership (as happened las time) then great....but we don't have that money and the current board seem intent on spending it and hoping that someone else coughs up the cash to cover it. I wouldn't argue with your last point, other than to say that you need to use the right professional consultants for the right reasons...or you end up throwing (other people's) good money after bad.

Any adjustments that were needed for the 2015/16 period would have been shown in the 2016/17 papers issued at the last AGM. It's part of the reason accounts show the previous years figures....so that ones a non starter. You, yourself, have made the point on many occasions that we have no clue as to what players are being paid. Are you now in possession of information on the current squad which changes that? The club had players, allegedly, on wages of less than £250 whilst we were in the Premiership....so, even if true, that would be nothing new. Robbo claims that £1.2 Million* (I think that's what it had grown to the last time he mentioned it) was cut from the playing budget. The chairman claimed that the impact on the club's income from relegation would be £1.2 Million. If both those figures are to be believed then they cancel out. If you take the loss from last year at face value....even though the Chairman has confirmed that it will reduce as a result of things I mentioned previously....then the loans (converted to shares) from earlier in the season cancel out the need for that this financial year. Why then, and again this is from the Chairman's mouth, do we need further substantial investment this season? The maths don't stack up. It also doesn't get away from the fact that the Chairman told everyone from day one that they had a plan that would remove the need for these gifts....and we've seen not a single iota of evidence to back up that this is happening or is likely to happen. They either lied....and I don't think they have lied in this instance....or they didn't know what they were getting in to and are failing, badly. *Robbo also claimed that the clubs income from gate receipts was down by £1.7 Million (you were in the press conference that day Charles), a number that doesn't match with the clubs claimed total loss of income, let alone one part of it....and also a figure I would peg at being about what the clubs total income from tickets (walk up and season tickets) would have been while we were in the premiership. Since we're not letting everyone in for free, then I suspect it's an inaccurate claim.

I'm pretty sure you were at the AGM Charles, so you will know that (albeit quite tacitly) the Chairman acknowledge that after adjustments which will be required during this financial year, the loss from last year will show as being significantly lower than the £422k shown. By my reckoning, it will reduce to somewhere very close to break even by the time you factor in the european money and rent write offs etc which were all earned/agreed during the last financial period. In respect of your comment on reduced spending....where exactly is the evidence of that? The squad size is pretty much the same, staff levels have increased with the addition of a COO (a position that won't have been filled cheaply) and a number of functions previously undertaken on a voluntary basis are now being done by consultants/agencies. The £450k already given is in addition to operational income for the current accounting period and there's strong rumours that a similar amount is required on top of that to see us through the season. So the £450k wasn't to plug any previous hole...and, indeed, the accounts show the club had cash in hand at the end of the 2017 accounting period. You'll not get much argument that the club has operated for a long while with a £200k to £250k annual "hole" that requires some good fortune or generosity to fill. If you use that as a measure of where the club is now, and even if you ignore the rumoured need for additional money, we're already twice as far into the hole than we normally go. For a board who claimed to have a plan that would get the club operating entirely within its own means and who were going to remove this need to "put round the hat"....they don't actually seem to be doing a very good job!!

From what I can see (and it was a cursory glance), the £450,000 of loans were converted to 450,000 shares.

You're worse than the SPFL!!!

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 ?