Charles Bannerman

He scores when he likes!!

If you are correct about Annan being done over by Arbroath (who on the other hand may be in beachball mode) then the difference between one point and all three for ICT would be enormous since a win would effectively secure safety by a minimum of goal difference.

Apparently since he did the turn for ICT, he’s been advanced to Celtic’s first team squad and is no longer available for loan.

Good on you for raising this, OCG! This is something I’ve never “got” about football and it begs the question of why a certain proportion of crowds actually go to games. To enjoy the sporting action? To support a team? Or simply to seek some personal gratification or reflected glory - and if they don’t get it, then it’s got to be somebody else’s fault? In an unfortunate number of cases it’s the last one and you do wonder what goes on in these people’s heads and what their world-views are? They seem neither to understand nor care that when they shout abuse at the team they claim to support, it’s worse than having no effect at all - it undermines the side and actually makes the outcome they seek less likely. ”Normal” fans sitting close to idiots like this need to make their views known to them and tell them to shut up… with “I’ve paid my money so I can shout what I like” absolutely no excuse. These people are a liability.

I think it’s also fair to point out that SK is the only manager who was presented at the start with a squad severely pruned by administrators and with next to no scope to strengthen it.

I think you also need to take into account that Ferguson v Kellacher can’t be a like with like comparison in that all of SK’s games have been with a squad that’s been depleted and impoverished by Administration. Fair enough, some of DF’s games were in the championship, but all 23 of SK’s have been under very constrained circumstances.

There are bound to be several who have died, especially since most of these shareholders would have bought their allocation 30 years ago, and many would have been middle aged even then. In theory, the deceased’s Executors obtain Confirmation of the Will (Probate in England) and then distribute the assets in accordance with its provisions. Even that complication would create an extra step in each and every case, and you could also understand that the collation of someone’s assets could very well miss a small holding of shares bought many years previously that no-one knew anything about. This was one of the reasons that I pressed Alan a little on what he stated as an inflexible requirement for the full 100%. Personally, I believe that he will be realistic and settle for something below 100%, which will still be enough to give him complete control, but is understandably stating 100% in order to attract as many as shares as possible.

Yes. There’s a reference on the second page of the letter which I didn’t have time screenshot earlier, although the caveat refers only to the CVA.

Maintaining current capacity most definitely isn’t a priority, but saving operating costs most definitely is, so much of the spectator capacity surely needs mothballed? I was never sure why they went, I think initially, to 7200 in 2005 when the SPL had retreated as far as 6000 from their previous nonsensical 10,000. As I recollect, 6000 was only really exceeded during earlier visits of the Old Firm and even these high points dropped away within a few years. I think it was the West Stand that lifted it to 7500.

This, to shareholders, arrived by email at 1300 today. If you have lost your share certificate in the intervening 29 years this, apparently, won’t be a problem.

The club is just in the process of escaping from a near death experience, where it was almost sunk by putting its faith in attempted non-football activities, and one of the first things Alan Savage highlighted when he came in back in August was the need to refocus on football activities. In any case, is there any need for another hotel in the area if the new prison is already there?

Embarking upon another episode of Devil’s Advocacy - in such an event, the club may have to be prepared to defend its position against the view that the original lease was granted solely for the purpose of allowing the arrival of Scottish League football in Inverness, and not as a gift of a saleable asset to act as a later remedy for three decades of fundamental loss making which have included two insolvency events, both involving creditors writing off substantial debt.

If there are tourism implications, why not just turn the entire site into a great big campervan park? In fact I’m surprised that SG and RM never thought of that one as well. There’s one further, (and more serious) question which may be worth asking, simply given the level of opposition to the club being granted the lease in the first place in 1994. Is anyone familiar enough with the precise terms of the lease to know whether it may contain any clause terminating it or preventing the club from selling it under circumstances where the site as a whole would no longer be used as a football ground. Back in 1994 there were both councillors and District Council officials who opposed it being granted at all, and one official claimed that the District Council could lose £5.4 million over its 99 year period compared with what a commercial lease might bring in. Given that background, and the tone of the discussion at that time, I just thought it might be worth asking the question about precise terms relating to any sale - although I do also realise that Tullochs were given control over the lease of the entire site as part of the 2000 bailout.

The notion of relocating the stadium is an interesting one, not the least on account of issues of expense and availability of land. I saw a mention somewhere that AS wants to involve HIE, who also control the Campus, so I don’t know if there are thoughts about trying to obtain their cooperation with respect to that. However I think we also need to remember that the Campus is a prime area, so it’s not clear how any stadium proposal would fit into the pecking order there. Given also that ICT’s assets won’t have enormous value on the open market (although I’m not sure about what the East Longman lease might be worth) I’d be interested to see how a club that’s had a close encounter with liquidation might fund new premises? Then in the longer term, given how much unearned cash the club has gone through in the last 30 years, there’s the bigger issue of how it can continue sustainably without the danger of a third near death experience.

I think it’s being highly disrespectful to Charlie… damning him with exceedingly faint praise like that!