IcyT

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.

There's been so much mention of the land around the stadium, and who owned it and sold it, etc. Did the club sell it to directors? Was a fair price paid? One would imagine there was a conflict of interest, in which case how was that resolved? And perhaps it was a "substantial property transaction" - 10% of the Company's assets or worth £100,000 (surely?!), in which case shareholder approval would have been required - Companies Act, section 190. Was that obtained? If not, the transaction would be voidable at the instance of the Company.

That is horrendous. Hardly gets the team fired up. Reminds me of the first leg of the Montrose play-off. Everything was so flat in such a massive game. It's sideways and backwards all the time, and slow, slow, slow. If anyone does manage to summon a bit of energy against all instruction, they're slated for it. "Get back, Billy - you're too far forward!" No wonder we're just lumbering along, drawing and not scoring. We're so far stuck in the rut from all the negative conditioning brought by the manager that we just can't get out of it. How things have changed since his first game at Arbroath!

The Courier piece and the MFR interview - what an absolutely crazy picture they paint. Too right the club needs a bit of structure. How on Earth was that madness allowed to go on for years?

It was interesting to read in the P&J that Christie and Savage had a chat with DF and agreed that he has a good squad capable of attacking football. I hope it was emphasised that attacking football is what the fans want and what is needed to get promoted - as DF didn’t seem to get it or is just one of those stubborn idiots who digs in to try to show he’s right and can get it going on his own terms. We’ll see today, I guess.

Oh God - “a number of luxury brands”; Immersive Experiences consultations. Really? Which brands? What engagement - an unsolicited email or two? Are these consultations paying the bills for a desk with no porthole…? Everything about this is just so ridiculous.

The company's not a listed company so share sales etc are just a matter of private contract, subject only to the company's Articles of Association. There's no Takeover Code or any such thing to comply with. "Panos Thomas, spokesperson for the Board of Directors, said: “We have received a formal offer to acquire a major shareholding and voting rights of the company and this has been unanimously accepted by the Board.”" This statement would suggest the Board has agreed to allot such number of shares to S7V as would give it a majority. That is within the gift of the Board (as opposed to selling existing shares, which are of course owned by shareholders, not the Board). However, as noted before, it seems to me that if new shares are indeed to be issued, existing shareholders have to be offered the chance to subscribe for them on the same terms, unless the pre-emption rights are disapplied by special resolution.

I'm trying to understand how S7V presumes to be able to take control. It could of course acquire a majority shareholding by buying shares from existing shareholders. It would be up to those existing shareholders to agree whatever price they want for them. The price could be less than whatever the selling shareholders paid for them. Why would a shareholder take that? Perhaps because they buy into the S7V vision and see it as the only way to keep the club going - i.e., putting the club first, and giving up on any hope whatsoever of their shares ever being worth - and realising - more than, or the same as, they themselves paid for them. If existing shareholders are not prepared to sell enough shares as would give S7V control, the company could allot more shares to S7V instead, i.e., S7V invests in the company itself for more shares to be issued. However, where the company does propose to allot more shares, it seems to me that it would be obliged to offer the same deal to existing shareholders. It is perhaps arguable that the company's articles of association do away with this obligation, but I note that the directors have previously acted as if they are so bound, since in 2017 the company specifically granted the directors the power to allot up to 5,000,000 shares free from this obligation (pre-emption rights). That power has now expired. The company could again disapply those pre-emption rights for an allotment of new shares now, but that would require a special resolution. A special resolution is passed where the holders of at least 75% of shares carrying a right to vote agree to it. That might be done at an EGM, with the shareholders attending that being the pool - so if the holders of shares accounting for 75% of the shares represented by those at the EGM agree, the special resolution is passed. So, does S7V have the support of existing shareholders in these numbers to enable it to acquire a majority? There must, one would think, be a lot of discussions going on behind the scenes...

Oh dear. Is that it?! One-man band with no substance per Companies House, and a load of trendy speak with no substance on their website.

…joins Buckie Thistle. What a signing! Wishing him all the best.

“I don’t know what the problem is, to be honest, but we want the fans here.“ Doesn’t know what the problem is. Or problems are. I’d say he’s thick.

A total farce. Where's Big Dunc in all this? Not talking to any players, it seems. What a leader/manager!

That’s fine, Ken - we all respect your view, I’m sure. However, many will not be in a position to throw £300 away as the case might turn out to be. Yes, Morrison and Gardiner out, and Kelty off, were original demands - plus better, watchable football would be a plus. But then the club raised administration as a real concern, noting they were seeking advice of an insolvency practitioner. So the goalposts will have moved for many. Now they also want a better understanding of where the club is going; what is the plan for survival. Would their season ticket money go towards the club or simply to its creditors in a winding-up. Hopefully there is substance to this talk of “investors”, or is it just talk like so many times before?

What kind of assurances has the Supporters Club obtained? "The uncertainty will soon be at an end." Is this merely the heads-up on the official statement coming out, or have they actually got more substantive info, e.g., have they been told what the investment (if it comes off) is to look like?

On the positive side, the Board is supposed to be talking to potential investors. The biggest risk is cashflow - not enough to pay the bills as and when. My understanding was that the 7-figure sum was the aggregate amount hoped to come in, but it was scheduled in £300k tranches, perhaps. Hopefully, substitute cash can come in on that scale (even if by way of loan from a party who's not going to require repayment any time soon) to give the club breathing space. Gardiner the blockage can walk, and then we get the season ticket sales, etc., and additional local investment.

Yes indeed, but if things are so catastrophic that a winding-up is on the cards, then that surely couldn't have been solved by moving to Kelty, paying Big Dunc, staying full-time. There must be someone out there who can fill the Red John void if that's what has sent things into the abyss....

I guess that whichever way this goes we get a reset. If a buyer comes in, I'm guessing they'll have to be in a position to inject sums (whether loans or otherwise) to clear existing debts, or do a deal to reduce them. If those debts are owed to existing shareholders, then presumably they'd be better off getting something towards them rather than nothing if the company went into administration? So they shouldn't be too difficult?!! If it's administration and we drop a league or whatever, we get going again from a manageable base, and with the whole community re-engaged. Back to basics. Get Spider in and develop the great players on our doorstep.

Beeb suggesting it could be - board meeting tonight? Just read Alan Savage’s piece in the Courier. Doesn’t pull his punches about the imbecilic move and how he needs to ringfence his financial support and won’t deal with Gardiner. Ryan Christie bought footballs last year because there was no money? What kind of priorities has the board had? Crazy.

I have - it's identity. You clearly don't agree that that's a consideration when supporting a team. I don't support Hibs because they have nothing to do with Inverness. I could ask, why are you so accepting of this bizarre arrangement? You might toe the line and say it's about attracting better players who can't be bothered committing to the area. Great if you can get behind a team full of such players - guys who don't want the inconvenience of travelling to Inverness, which the club would be part of in name only. On that basis, I would be as well to support Partick - it's got "Thistle" in it.

It affects me. What am I being asked to support now? Just a collection of lads who turn up to play 90 minutes in Inverness every other week, never to be seen otherwise? That's not a football club. A football club should be embedded in the community. It should represent the city. If players aren't even based here, what's the point? I wonder if the Courier and P&J will give up on player interviews, etc? Leave it the Dunfermline Herald or something...

Absolute shocker! Kelty Caley Thistle and Kelty Hearts. Who knew Kelty could be a two team town! It's no longer ICT - it's like Barcelona, based in Barcelona, going off to play league games in the US. ICT, based in Kelty, gracing us every other week with a game in Inverness. We'll be another Elgin City - full of central belt journeymen with no affinity to Inverness or the area. No identity = no playing for the shirt (not that we really did that in the saeson just gone, to be fair!). Why should I carry on supporting Caley? Do Wimbledon fans of old support MK Dons? The club has lost its home, community, fans, the plot. Let's get behind Clach and have them up in the Scottish league as Inverness' team while Caley fight relegation to the Highland League...

It's not much of a defence if he looks at all fans as if they're dirt under his shoe! Not too strong on the "unity" there, either. Clearly there's a "them" and "us", where the fans are a subspecies, whose voices don't count - but they'll take our money and throw out a platitude here and there in the desperate hope of keeping that going.

Well, that’s that. Absolutely honking and the subs are hardly going to turn it. Dunc out - he’s clueless. Part-time football and play our youth squad next season. Get Spider in fae Buckie.