IcyT

It would be a shame if Caley were to leave the Longman, if only because the Moray Firth/Black Isle is such a picturesque backdrop. Rivalled by our administration in arms, Dumbarton, on that score. Fantastic, though, that we look to have an immediate route forward and exit from administration, fingers crossed. Hoping there'll be a great buzz around the place for Kelty tomorrow.

If 90% agree, the 10% are indeed obliged to sell on the same terms - section 979, Companies Act 2006. That might be at a penny per share, or whatever. Obviously, if FC Inverness holds the shares in the football company, and someone comes along to buy the football company it pays FC Inverness for the shares. That’s the deal in any corporate sale, unless it’s a sale of assets by the football company - which would entail assignations of licences, etc. And that should be fair enough. FC Inverness would itself have put up the money in the first place to take control of the football company. At any time after incorporation of a company, more money going into the company must be for new shares, or put in by way of loan. A buyer may invest further into the football company after first paying the shareholders for their shares in, and thereby ownership, of the football company. I don’t see the problem there. Realistically, the ST does not have any control now. It has a voice. Maybe the new structure would continue to allow a voice, but not so as to jeopardize change of control in the future. I am simply saying how I think this would work now, and in the future.

I think the shares are currently pretty much worthless. I don’t think that AS paying certain shareholders buttons for such number of shares as would give him control of the company would be fair on them when others who stay in suddenly find their own shares carry value as administration has passed and the company is debt-free. Proposal seems to be that AS’ newco makes an offer for all shares in the company, holders of 90% accept, and the others are obliged to sell on the same terms. Newco has 100% of shares in football company. Who knows if AS will be 100% owner of Newco. Maybe others will put capital in alongside to raise the £800k required. But it certainly makes it easier in future to sell the football club to any third party with massive pockets who can invest further. Newco sells its 100% at that point. Yes, Newco receives the price (and returns cash to its investors), but new owner takes football company and can put new money in on top of the purchase price paid. Maybe the ST would just get non-voting shares (or with limited votes) as a freebie in the football company going forward, but nothing as would sprag a future deal, noting that the disparate shareholdings today were identified as a real risk to progress by BDO.

I've not checked the company's articles of association, which may provide for a lower threshold, but the Companies Act provides that if an offer is received for a company's entire issued share capital which is acceptable to the holders of 90%, then all others can be "dragged" in the sale of the 100%. That might sweep up any shares held by those who might not be in favour. If most shares are held by a few, who are all on side, maybe it's achievable. If the company folds, of course, the shares are worth nothing - which I suppose is the "carrot" to accept transferring shares for nothing; at least we'd still get to follow our club...

Fair play to AS. He's put money into the club to keep it going through this process. If £800k seems a little cheap to get ownership of a club debt free, I think you have to credit him for his earlier donations. Clearly has the club's interests at heart and, as he says, he'd step aside if this manoeuvre encourages a better offer.

Well done, Allan Mackenzie! And, to be fair, all parties in attending. "Purdah", "stasis" - colourful stuff. It is crazy, though, that the administrators have not managed to do anything similar in the whole period of their appointment. But then what incentive, when Alan Savage has been providing constant cash to pay their bills...

It's a pretty poor paragraph suggesting that new parties need to be found. That would appear not to be correct if the concerns raised are actually addressed, including the write-off of loans, for example. That would not be a case of starting the whole thing again. It's surprising that no attempt seem to have been made by the JAs re the write-off of loans before now, though!

Football’s all about dreams (and with a fair whack of despair thrown in!). What a season…

Noting the discussion on the validity or otherwise of RM's floating charge. The issue probably relates not so much to the Companies Act, but to the Insolvency Act 1986, and would hinge on whether the loan by RM to the club was made prior to the charge being granted. If, for example, the loan was made in October 2023, and RM did not take his floating charge from the club until the reported date of 20 December 2023, the validity of the charge would be challengeable under section 245 (avoidance of certain floating charges): "Subject as follows, a floating charge on the company’s undertaking or property created at a relevant time is invalid except to the extent of the aggregate of— (a)the value of so much of the consideration for the creation of the charge as consists of money paid, or goods or services supplied, to the company at the same time as, or after, the creation of the charge, (b)the value of so much of that consideration as consists of the discharge or reduction, at the same time as, or after, the creation of the charge, of any debt of the company, and (c)the amount of such interest (if any) as is payable on the amount falling within paragraph (a) or (b) in pursuance of any agreement under which the money was so paid, the goods or services were so supplied or the debt was so discharged or reduced."

Superb stuff from the Caley. What a terrific performance. Scott has really got the players working hard for each other. Great to see, and if it’s going to be like the Pele years, Caley Canary, we’ll all be very happy!!

Shame to be out, but I was glad to see that the rubbish sideways, plodding stuff has gone. Longstaff looked good, as did Robbie Thompson. Nolan did well, too, in the first half at least. I was disappointed to see Billy have a right go at Robbie when Billy’s attempted pass sailed out. So what if Robbie did “point” where he wanted it; the ball was poor. Mistakes happen - as per Billy’s pass! - but there’s no need for the rage and finger-pointing. Hope his coaching style is different. Penalty looked soft. Watched the Cove lad’s vlog, and it could have been one for VAR. But ref was keen to give it, and just as keen to give what looked an equally soft free kick just outside the box.

So, Chris McLaughlin of the Beeb refers to whispers at boardroom level surrounding a couple of well-known clubs in particular, as further possibilities for going into administration. I wonder what counts as "well-known".

Yep, Pele is God. Good times. They’ll be back!

I wonder if Billy will play himself up top on Saturday…

Quite, and with much greater certainty. Realistically, nobody in their right mind would take over the club with unknown liabilities and mysterious land deals.

Ketan had an office in the QE2, though. But where do these guys come from? I might launch a bid. Just need to incorporate a company, whack a fiver in it, and I get an audience, at least.

Implying that the board would not entertain any late offer, which I’m sure they would be obliged to do if they’re to discharge their duty to act in the best interests of the company, etc. Just seems a bland statement, and almost as though the board is reveling in the drama and secrecy….

I guess the gamble is whether administration would actually lead to liquidation. Maybe things will be clearer after Monday. But yes, at this rate we would be relegated even without an administration points deduction. Desperate, miserable, awful. What a mess.

Under section 245 of the Insolvency Act, a floating charge granted by the chargor (company) in favour of a “connected person” (a director of the company) is invalid to the extent that (i) it is granted where no consideration for it is received at the time or subsequently and (ii) the company is the subject of insolvency proceedings in the following two years. So, if Morrison had already loaned sums to Caley and only subsequently took security via this floating charge in December 2023, it would be invalid to that extent. if, however, he did legitimately lend a sum to Caley and Caley granted security at the same time, then it would be valid. Or if he granted security first and then advanced sums. If not repaid, Morrison could look to enforce charge, and administrator would check its validity. Of course there does seem to be conflicts of interest all over these transactions. Were the directors acting for the benefit of the shareholders as a whole, per their statutory duty? If not, then such transactions could be challenged on that basis.

This is nuts. Surely there’s been gross dereliction of duty as directors for years? How could any of them have seen these losses as sustainable. How could there even have been such losses?! All that seems to have gone on are land deals between companies in which directors have an interest while the club went to pieces. Imagine a football club that relied on an ex-player to buy footballs for it?!

OK - what does it say? That fans don’t have bucketloads of cash to throw at something they don’t even enjoy? Football on some level is supposed to be entertaining. Why do we start off watching football and supporting any team at all? Now, why would I spend 5 hours on the road and another 105 minutes at the ground when I could have a lot more enjoyment doing something else? Kids used to watch Caley, but it’s now turgid, and I can’t “tempt” them along any more. Quite rightly, I guess, they’ve turned to the Dons as their local team…

Yep. Would I travel 5 hours on a Saturday to watch this dross? Nope. Not a great crowd today. I guess a lot of fans feel the same.

I’m not sure if there’s sarcasm in the **** easy league comment. If there is, then I don’t see why. This certainly should be easy for a full-time club (despite our problems), and the few games we’ve seen justify the view that the other teams in it are hardly Goliaths of the game in stature, skill, etc. Jeez, are we now to accept that this league is a challenge and we’d be doing well to avoid the drop from it?! That said, we only scraped past Montrose in the play-offs and got beat by Hamilton - so even before everything blew up it was clear that DF didn’t have it to deal with teams of this league’s standard, and it’s continued. That’s down to tactics - slow, negative and not utilizing our players’ attributes properly.

This league is there for the taking, but sadly not by us with DF in charge. A season just to survive off the pitch, I suppose. Hopefully DF’s contract expires at the end of the season (does it?) and we get a decent manager in who knows something about winning and positive football to get us up next season. By which time I guess we’ll have to be part-time?

Good that he’s agreed a pay cut to help the club. However, I note he says: “For me, it is all about player care – looking after the players as best we possibly can. “That’s not really happened.” Absolutely. Is he taking any responsibility for the disgraceful treatment of Aaron Doran, Mark Ridgers et al? With SG out maybe he’d be able to talk about that (and blame SG for his own inaction if that’s correct), but he’s not mentioned it.