CaleyD

I'll do what I can to make the meeting open/available to those unable to attend in person. I've also contacted Supporters Direct Scotland to try and ascertain what their understanding is of things, whether the advice (if any) they have been given has been provided from a position of having all the information and whether or not they can offer any advice/guidance to the members to move things forward. I await their response.

By my reckoning, yesterday was the last day in which CJT should have issued an EGM notice in order to provide 14 clear days notice for a meeting to be held within 28 days of when they were instructed to call one by the members at the AGM....that meeting should have been set on or before 3rd January 2018. It would be tough to organise an independent open meeting for 2nd January. With it being a matchday then people aren't going to want to go to anywhere other than the stadium and that will be in use with match hospitality so unavailable. The preference would still be fore CJT to call an EGM and/or a meeting, but I'll check out venue availability and look to get something pencilled in either that week or the following.

Reference to the Stadium can be read as "Main Stand & Pitch" when mentioned alongside the North & South stands.

Not true.

Correct, it is written into the club's memorandum and articles.....but any restructuring would mean a new rule-set. Even if those new rules maintained the 10% voting right, it would still render the additional shares held be the trust as worthless as they would/could not be added to increase that voting right. I don't want to be getting ahead of things here as no detail was given at the AGM, just the loose idea....however, as CJT are the only existing fans group with a shareholding/voting right then (on the face of it) we'd either need to set up a new fans group any time we wanted to increase the fans say or, any cap would have to exclude CJT....otherwise you're not putting the club back to the fans, you're capping their influence at 10%....which is worse than the current position. It's all these questions, and many more that will no doubt arise, which make it vital that CJT is suitably represented from the outset.

With the announcement at the AGM that the current board intend to recommend to shareholders that the club is restructured into a Community Interest Company, then there's no time to lose in sorting out CJT. With the intimation given about capping any individual/groups voting right to 10%, this would mean that the Supporters Trust's influence would be immediately diluted with the shares they hold in addition to the 10% voting right becoming worthless. It is also an intimation which appears to stand in contrast to the accompanying line that this is a move intended to put the club back in the hands of the fans. We absolutely need to be organised as a group so we can ensure there's suitable representation at the table when these discussions begin.

From the AGM it was generally agreed that Tulloch had provided in the region of £6,500,000 of "value" to the club over the years (not including any interest). I've not done the exact sums, but it was surmised that they had received approx £2,000,000 in rental income over the years....there's also been £300k of rent arrears written off and no rental for the past 12 months. That gives a net position of about £5,000,000 that Tullochs "paid" for the stadium & leases since 2001. The gift that has just been provided means the club will save 76 years worth of rent at £205,000 plus they asset has been valued at £2,300,000....total £17,880,000. Club will have £30k rent to pay per year (£15k to Common Good Fund & £15k for Car Parks)....over 76 years (and on the assumption we may have the car parks that long or need to pay for an alternative at similar rate if they are developed) that's a £2,280,000......the net "gift" value comes out at £15,600,000....on top of the £5,000,000 net investment by Tullochs from the last paragraph. Whichever way you want to cut it....that's £20,000,000 to the good for ICTFC....and I fail to see how anyone can continue to paint Tulloch as the bad guys. Some of you have been around this forum long enough to know that I did a lot of digging and questioning over the whole stadium ownership/lease deals for a number of years because I wanted to ensure that the debt would never come back to haunt the club. You may also recall that I made a statement (it may still be on this forum somewhere) that whilst I could not share information that I had been shown in confidence, I was happy to stick my neck out and state that the club's interests were being looked after and that the debt would not come back to haunt us. So this is as huge for me personally as it is for the club because a lot of people have questioned my credibility over the years as a result of that. Finally (for now at least...lol)....the work to bring the stadium ownership back to the club was started a long time ago and the offer was made public 12 months ago....so whilst the current board may have been the ones to finally sign off on it, credit has to be given to the previous Chairman and Board as they are actually the ones that made it even remotely likely or possible.

That is my understanding of the rules. What's more, there was an uncontested & accepted motion from the floor at the AGM for an EGM at the earliest opportunity. I'll comment on your second question at the end. Caleytrue, you are the same as the vast majority of fans....and that is entirely ok. Football should be about turning up on a Saturday (or whatever other day TV or ridiculous winter midweek fixtures may dictate) to cheer on your team with friends, family etc....then enjoy the post match analysis when you get home, back to the pub and/or online here or wherever you might partake of a bit of social media chatter. A Supporters Society, such as CJT, is a "Community Benefit" organisation. As the name suggests, it exists to serve the community (made up of fans, club etc) and not (directly) the individual interests of it's members. One of the listed objectives in the rules is to ensure that the club operates with good governance and that the club board looks after the fans, club's and community's interests.....just the same as any other rights/shareholder can/should do for themselves and the club. They (CJT) have a duty to communicate with the community (and not just their members). That should, in an ideal world, mostly be about letting people know everything is fine, but it is also needed when it's necessary to gather fan opinion or when some form of action is needed.....good or bad. Beyond that, CJT also carry within their constitution the authority to strengthen their position in regards to the operation and ownership of the club and, in that regard, may seek to undertake fundraising for the purchase of shares, running campaigns, backing initiatives/projects etc. Why join if your interests are being looked after regardless? To do as you have said and support those who are actively working towards those ends, to ensure that those who represent the organisation (and your interests) operate with good governance and to be in a position to take part in any decision making that may be required from time to time. The voting right of CJT actually sits at slightly above 10%. In addition to the 10% voting right attached to the shares transferred from the old Members Club, they have purchased additional shares over the years....so they have been working to grow their influence, although not so much in the last 5 years or so. In regards to the above two quoted posts.....Supporters Direct (Scotland) are the umbrella organisation for Supporters Trusts. They used to have a primary remit for helping club's fans set up their own trusts, and were very successful in doing so. That remit has since shifted to one where their primary aim is helping Supporters Trust that are looking to obtain major stake in/ownership of their clubs. Aside from the legislative inclusions that come with being registered as an Industrial and Provident Society, there is within CJT's rules, articles which require us to adhere to some of the guidelines and principles laid down by Supporters Direct. It is not their (Supporters Direct) job to be running our, on anyone else's, Supporters Trust and I have concerns over the advice they (CJT) claim they are getting. It's either completely wrong, or not based on being given all the facts. For that reason I will be making contact with Supporters Direct in due course to seek some clarity from them....although, the last time they were contacted about claims of advice they were giving to CJT, they said they had no knowledge of working with them on anything! Supporters Direct Scotland website - http://www.supporters-direct.scot/ Again I will cover the previous two quotes in single response....latter first. Financial Records ARE up to date as Hearach says. This can be seen on the FCA register at https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=2665&Suffix=RS The ones for which the society was almost struck off were brought up to date in 2013 (again, that can corroborated on the above link)....so the claim by CJT would appear to be that it has taken over 4 years to get the rules sorted and submitted? The error on the rules (and I know as I dealt with it at the time) were minimal. Supporters Direct had failed to provide the final draft and one of the rules wasn't pertinent to our setup and there was some minor issue with numbering. These were sorted and cleared by me with both the FSA/FCA and Supporters Direct for re-submitting. It was then left in the hands of others on the board, who were also working on the returns, to get that done. Even if you accept the refusal to register the rule change without completion of the returns (and I don't*) then it could/should have been done anytime after the end of April 2013. *I disagreed with this at the time (I was on the board then), I saw no documentation to support this at the time and I resigned due to having no support from the wider board in getting it sorted at the time. I hold pertinent qualifications and worked as a compliance auditor responsible for upholding FSA rules; so have an understanding of their workings. I agree that what's most important now is moving things forward, but I feel that people need an understanding of how we have arrived where we are so we can learn from it and make the best decisions for tidying up and advancing the society. I've consciously not included or attached individual names to anything I have said because this is not personal and, as a board, they have joint and several liability...whilst the board is, and should be, democratic; if an individual board member believes that fundamental errors exist and they accept that and do nothing, then they are as culpable as the rest. It is apparent that current (and recently resigned) board members refuse/d to communicate openly with the wider member base and fans (as a community benefit society their responsibility is not only to the members). In fact, I had the first communication I've had in months from one of the board members by email during the last week and it stated that they would not be getting into any public discussions...either at meetings or online...which is unacceptable! I am fully aware of the personal circumstances of a couple of the current CJT board and have every sympathy, but this isn't a matter that can't be allowed to drag on. if the society was not in the state it was then there would be other board members to pick up and run with things, but there's not. There remains a single board member who only joined the board at the recent AGM and who will have had no time to get up to speed on anything. If there is no communication from the CJT board in the near future as to when the EGM will be and/or how matters are to be moved on, then I am willing to arrange a venue and time for an open fans meeting (if that's what people want) where options (as to how things are taken forward) can be discussed.

I believe Ian Broadfoot still holds a lot of stuff on behalf of the club. There are boxes of items at the stadium over and above that, so I wouldn't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that anything has been discarded.

Mckay.....small "k" ?

That was a match v Falkirk as well.....think they are the jinx!!

I'm with TM4TJ & Kingsmills. Wouldn't expect him to have the work rate (in terms of distance covered) that we have at the moment, but he's a powerful fella and could be dangerous with the right supply.

Absolutely. There should be (and is) nothing stopping anyone who has the interests of the Club, and the community it operates in, from joining.

The Club (ICTFC) have no say whatsoever in the operation of CJT and have no authority to wind it up (or otherwise). CJT can only be wound up by the members or shut down by the regulators; it is the latter which poses the biggest risk, IMO. My understanding of the options are based on the rules I have to hand and which I believe are/should be in force. However, nobody representing the board at the AGM was able to confirm this and/or provide a copy of the rules which they claim to be working under. They also seemed to want to work to rules which had not yet been registered! 1. As the AGM gave the board instruction to hold an EGM at the earliest opportunity in order to rectify the situation with it being non-operational, then they have 28 days in order to make that happen. Should they fail, then any 3 people in attendance at the AGM can act on behalf of the members to call an EGM in order to do that. 2. Any 20 members can give written instruction to the board to call an EGM and state the purpose of that meeting. A failure to hold that meeting within 28 days would allow any 3 of those 20 to act on behalf of the members to call and hold that meeting. Until there's an operational board in place, then any/all other disputes are secondary. With that in mind, my view would be that the first option is the one to be followed and it is a process that is already underway. That means that a meeting should be held on or before the 3rd January 2018, with notice being given 14 clear days prior to that (19th December 2017).

Robbo told the press weeks ago that they had a deal agreed.....he just needed to find/free up the funds to put it in place.

There are others, in the same boat as me, who have joined the board to try and move things forward but have found they are fighting a losing battle with people currently on the board or recently departed. There's been a very unhealthy attitude that just because things are done with (apparent) good intention, then they should not be questioned or criticised. The phrase "it was done in good faith" has, and still gets thrown around a lot by members of the society board. It's a term that has it's place and it's even legislated for within the society rules....doing something in good faith and getting it wrong is when you find yourself having to make a snap decision and don't get it quite right, or when you operate on the basis of something being done historically, only to find it wasn't perhaps the correct way to be doing it. Showing deliberate disregard for the rules just because you don't like them or they don't fit with your motives or even because you don't understand them....or don't know them, even though you have been a director for a number of years....is not acting in good faith, it's incompetent and irresponsible. On no less than 11 occasions during the AGM on Tuesday, the person chairing the meeting stated that they could not answer a question or clarify a situation because they did not know the society rules. They used the excuse that they were not due to be the person chairing the meeting....and you could have perhaps excused that, except....they have served on the board for around 10 years so have had ample opportunity to familiarise themselves with the rules, even the change to rules in 2012. They didn't seem to know what rules the society is suppose to actually be operating under and were talking about registering changes that hadn't even been before and voted on by a general meeting of the members!! What's more, the same person chaired the last AGM in February 2016* and on a number of occasions during that they also failed to answer questions and points of ordered with the excuse that they did not know the society rules. Let's get one thing absolutely clear here....if this society is shut down, and it's a very real risk if the Financial Conduct Authority (who are their regulator) believe it is not operating as it should, then the fan's 10% voting right is gone...forever. It doesn't transfer to anyone else, it disappears. It only exists so long as the 108 shares to which it is attached are held by the Inverness Caledonian Thistle Supporters Society Limited. If you think something needs to be done, you're damn right it does. The society members need to stand up and make sure this is not allowed to continue.....and I suggest you all start by ensuring that you do not allow the current board to proceed with their plans to cancel over 700 memberships without having made proper contact with the entire membership base....they tried to tell those at the AGM that the society now only has 65(?) members. Thankfully those in attendance did not accept that and the board agreed to keep those memberships active until the end of the current financial year (May 2018). If trying to battle the above makes me (and others also trying to battle it) moaning minnies...then where do I pick up my badge? *The AGM held on Tuesday was due to have taken place before the end of 2016, so was over 11 months late in taking place. They couldn't even produce minutes for the EGM held in April 2016 to sort out the mess from the AGM 2 months earlier.

See my post of the 29th August... http://caleythistleonline.com/topic/31574-caley-jags-together/?do=findComment&comment=482289

None

Having witnessed literally hundreds of press conferences and interviews over the years, there's a turn of phrase that often crops up in regards to looking at players who have "fallen out of favour" at other clubs.....so I'd be inclined to think that was what was intended.

Long and short of it.....the society is currently in abeyance due to having insufficient board members. An EGM will be held at some point in the future (no timescale was given) to rectify this and bring it back into proper operating order.

The Tory Party

Did your job well Had a pretty good stab at your job, but room for improvement Some development required Report immediately for retraining Go home mate, this isn't for you Are you John McKendrick?

My requests for a copy of the rules upon which the organisation are currently operating has not been responded too I was not asked for any renewal, but I was asked to send confirmation of my contact details (many weeks ago). I have done that, but had no response. I have received no notification of any need to renew, and would not have expected one....not because I do not believe myself a member, but it would irresponsible (and a breach of regulations) for the organisation to effectively cancel all memberships in the manner they seem to have done and ask people to re-apply, without (as Davie as highlighted) notifying the membership of a change to procedures. My family, who are members, have also not received any notice....nor have a number of other people I have spoken to.

Was a few things like this which quietly went away when the SFL & SPL merged.