CaleyD

That will be taken from the newest Wyness Shuffle podcast where they spoke to Bryan Jackson. Well worth a listen.

This happened in August last year. My take on it from the info available is that agreement was reached to write off debts/exchange them for shares. What then seems to have happened is that disagreement arose over the car parks, people were getting slated in the press etc. and the whole thing quickly fell apart. In that regard we seem to be right back where we were then, but 15 points worse off and facing a huge invoice from BDO. Hopefully the outcome is different this time!

Need to keep in mind that the administrator is there to get the best possible outcome for the creditors, which effectively "on the side" of everyone due money. This means they have to be cautious about how they deal with writing off debts, and why their statement made it very clear they were asking people to fulfil previous intimated intentions to do so. In relation to the car parks, they are not part of the club, so not part of what they are dealing with. Whilst it may improve the value of the club, they aren't going to get involved in any of those talks directly. That would be akin to a scenario where you're selling your house but the buyers want the neighbours garden, so the estate agent starts putting pressure on them to just hand it over so they can get a deal done. As uncomfortable/upsetting as it is, the club have no legal claim on the carparks beyond any existing lease with Ross Morrison and David Cameron. In short, it's not within the administrators duty, and would possibly breach their obligations, to have hosted or attended this kind of meeting.

Just putting it out there.... What if someone connected to the energy industry was trying to do a deal with HIE to free up the site of the stadium so it could realise it's full development potential? What if a third party controlled part of that land and needed some persuasion to hand it over on the cheap? What if HIE had some sway on land elsewhere upon which a stadium could be sited....say a smaller, more efficient stadium that could be "swapped" for the current one? If such a person existed, how might they go about making the above happen?

From what's been said, I don't think the security has passed scrutiny. AS said that the person holding £1.5M would walk away with the largest share of any CVA. If the security was solid, then they'd likely walk away with all of any CVA. I also can't get my head around why it's going to need £1.8 million of investment to get through next season? That would suggest our financial position would be worse than it was under Morrison and Gardiner! The stadium shift to UHI campus is not a new idea. That was being talked about nearly 10 years ago.

Even if such a clause did exist, the question remains....to what ends? They pull the lease, and then what? Restrictions on use of the land prevent it being developed/used for other means, they'd effectively be cutting off their own income. It should also be noted that Cameron and Morrison will be paying rent to the Common Good Fund. If they transfer the lease to the club then we have to pay that instead, so it doesn't wipe out the need to pay rent. The current setup may be messier than needs be, but it's not a financial obstacle in the whole scheme of things.

Administrator will continue to run the club so long as there's money there to do so and some hope that creditors will see some of what they are owed returned to them. AS has said he will do that until the end of the season so, unless someone else steps in, that's pretty much the deadline before they'd pull the plug and start liquidating.

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.