Charles Bannerman

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!

If I were to be a Devil’s Advocate for a moment, I would point out that Alan Savage is CURRENTLY the only game in town and has said he’s happy to stand aside if another option comes along. And (as I’ve said variously before) this club, since 1994, has suffered two insolvency events despite having had a ballpark £15 million of other people’s money given to it. Is it therefore realistic for those associated with it to expect any further concessions from anyone? (End of Devil’s Advocacy)

I think that the difference here is that the £1.225M was invested even before the first financial collapse in 1999 and was effectively rendered worthless then, since the quid pro quo for that debt being made to disappear was that Tullochs became owners of the stadium (which they then gifted back some years later). The same goes for the £564,000 from the 1996 share issue. Most (I believe around £330,000) of that came from Ian Fraser and its plunge in value is reflected in the fact that Sandy Catto (allegedly) bought Ian Fraser’s shares for a song, possibly as little as 20p each. Pretty well all the rest of that issue came from the hundreds of fans who typically took a £250 stake. They never expected to see their money back again even before it was rendered worthless in 1999. In 1994, Thistle and Caley both voted to invest their assets in ITandC. That company has subsequently messed up twice and has been bailed out once, and now hopefully for a second time. It’s difficult therefore to justify that original £1.225M (and indeed the proceeds of the 1996 issue) having any value at all now. Looking at it another way, it appears that Ross Morrison has waived his entitlement to £1.6M secured on the stadium and this will be a vital component if a deal is eventually arrived at with respect to the current embarrassment. It would therefore be difficult to justify the survival of an investment that has gone though not one but two such collapses. That’s not an outcome that I would like to see, but so much of other people’s money has gone down the swanney since the 1990s (I can make a case for £15M) that the conclusion appears inescapable.

OK D… if you want to split hairs, I’ll add the word “ordinary”. I remember attending the AGM when the 10% was agreed. Was there not a stage where the ST had a fixed 50%, which DFS wanted reduced because any potential new shareholders would be put off by the difficulty of acquiring influence? I believe that the block in question has its origins in the assets of Thistle and Caley as realised mainly in the mid 90s. Interestingly, excluding the Caley Social Club which was sold later, these were disposed of for something in the region of a gross £1.6M+ (mainly Kingsmills, Telford Street and the Thistle Club) but their net value, as quoted by the club when the stadium opened, was £1.225M. We can presumably take it that the difference represents various costs - mainly legal - associated with the merger. If I were to allow my head to rule my heart on this one, I would feel inclined to agree that, given that the club has EFFECTIVELY gone bust twice and the stadium has been security against a bailout on both occasions, I would find it morally difficult to justify that 10% being retained. (But only morally!!)

The ST’s 10% voting right - which is not a shareholding but a fixed 10% in any vote irrespective of shares - wasn’t mentioned at last week’s press event. Its effect would be to require anyone wishing for total control, which I think requires 75% of voting strength, to hold 83% of the shares to achieve it, and this perhaps helps partly explain why AS is setting his sights high. I don’t know what the ST’s position is on possibly surrendering this right, even if this os required, but if AS could amass 75% voting rights, I believe he would have the clout to make the necessary arrangements to force that if he insisted - but I am sure he is also savvy enough to know that he needs to take the fans with him. As regards a shift of stadium, I would personally be quite happy to move from East Longman to a better location such as UHI, but I’m not clear how realistic this would be in terms of land availability (which was even a problem in 1994) and cost. In the case of the latter, just how willing would external parties be to hand over or contribute cash or assets to a football club that has already gone through massive amounts of other people’s money (I would estimate anything up to £15 million in the last 30 years). I would caution against any view that people will put their hands in their pockets simply because it’s Caley Thistle - especially since the club is only now beginning to recover from the largely self-inflicted injury of its battered image and credibility among local movers, shakers and business people.

For four minutes, the cushion was heading for six points…then Annan and Queens both came from behind to reduce that to goal difference.

Not so, Cherly. But I do recognise that Alan Savage has been the only credible game in town and has also tabled a bid for the club. Call it “bird in the hand worth two in the bush” if you like, but this club has been hovering on the threshold of oblivion for months so if a bid comes in, with the only apparent caveat the need for 100% share ownership, you have to welcome that as, at worst, a backstop that can guarantee survival.

To be realistic, beggars can’t be choosers inasmuch as if the AS deal is the best available and he wants full control, then that’s what he gets. This, in essence, is not dissimilar to the last time the club almost went bust in 1999-2000 when Tullochs came in, clearing a reported £2.3M of debt and funding a business plan for future years. This included about £0.75M in share capital and the North and South stands. In return they obtained ownership of the stadium and lease and also had three “Tulloch Directors” including the Chairman with a casting vote on a board of six. In practice this gave Tullochs complete control and marked the start of the best 15 year financial (and footballing) period in the club’s history. The only difference is that Tullochs never had anything close to a majority of shares.

That’s an interesting question about the Supporters’ Trust entitlement since, as it’s a fixed voting power of 10% irrespective of how many shares exist. I don’t believe that it’s associated with a specific number of Ordinary Shares. I’m guessing that if it was to be scrapped, it might well require a change to the Articles of Association - assuming that these aren’t overridden by the powers of the Administrators. I felt I had asked quite enough questions this morning without going into that area.

This is very encouraging news, especially the local nature of the bid which I warmly welcome. There are, however, one or two questions - which I did take the opportunity of raising at this morning’s press conference. The issues fall into three broad categories - the extent of the total £4M debt; the current existence of 4 million shares which are also widely spread among over 500 shareholders; and ownership of the lease of the car parks. Regarding the debt, it rather looks to me as if the recent meeting with creditors achieved the cancellation of a very large proportion of it. Would it be necessary for every penny of it to disappear to meet AS’s second and third conditions? I think the biggest obstacle as things currently stand is the shares (Condition 1). He confirmed that he categorically wanted 100% ownership, which would require every single one of the current 4 million shares to be surrendered. How realistic is this, given that a cohort of over 500 people is pretty well bound to include at least a small “awkward squad”? Might he retreat slightly on this one, given that even 75% is enough to give total control - unless there are plans to raise some more share capital? It would appear that there was some kind of verbal agreement at that meeting that RM and DC would sell their interest in Propco (Condition 4) - and that now needs to become written by April 16th. AS has said he will stand aside in the event of a better offer (with earlier interests apparently including from places like Venezuela) and a mega-bid would obviously be very attractive to the administrators, but in the absence of that, I for one would be very happy to see local control of this club.

Me too and al my sums have been based on that. The only advantage of 5th-7th is the tiny extra bit of cash. I would actively not want 4th.

I would suggest not “ideally” but CRUCIALLY a relegation playoff is to be avoided because there’s always an element of lottery there. My ideal final placing would be fifth, which itself is very probably beyond the club, with a promotion playoff place neither conceivable nor desirable. On the other had I would be prepared to settle for goal difference above most probably Annan (although I really wouldn’t welcome the squeaky bum experience that would bring). With six games left, an advantage of just three points plus goal difference is still pretty thin, with the six pointer defeat by Annan the biggest single factor. In theory, up to 16 points from these last six games could still be required but in practice it will be a lot less than that and since Scott Kellacher took over, Annan have been pulled in pretty consistently. In fact here are some statistics for that period since 26 October: ICT have pulled Annan in by 16 points across 20 games, converting a 13 point deficit into a 3 point advantage; there is no run of six games across which Annan have scored more points than ICT and (game to gsme rather than date to date) on only 3 of these 20 occasions have Annan scored more points than ICT. Now of course what is effectively a four point advantage can be fragile, but it also needs at least two occasions in the last six for Annan to do better than ICT for Annan to go eighth. This is of course possible but would require an unprecedented change in results trend over the last six games compared with the preceding 20.

I am referring to the first public reference to administration as the best available option… not to Ross Morrison using it as some kind of vague threat to coerce people into accepting a harebrained wheeze dreamt up by some or all of himself, Gardiner and Ferguson.

The first public mention of Administration came at the fans’ meeting in the Social Club last May, from Alan MacKenzie who is a financial lawyer and a former club Vice Chairman. More recently, he was behind last week’s meeting that seems (we hope!) to have concentrated several minds in the direction of a solution. I think that the reality is that Administration should probably have come rather earlier than it did and the overwhelming evidence for that suggestion is the absolutely desperate state the club eventually got into - so desperate that a buyer has, predictably, been difficult to find. There were clear signs as long ago as 2018-19 in the form of the need to raise £1M in share capital, that the club’s finances were in a desperate state, and since then there has been an astonishing catalogue of financial profligacy and consequent deepening debt, including Morrison’s secured £1.6M, that finally rendered the club the complete basket case it currently is. Much of the problem is that the club’s finances were allowed to sink into the mire for far too long - on the strength of the naive assumption that red herrings and white elephants such as concert companies, battery farms and park and rides would straightforwardly emerge as panaceas.

The way I look on it is that, in a situation where attendances might have evaporated on relegation, current League One numbers aren’t all that far below what they were historically across the several years since 1999 when the club was in the Championship. On dropping into League One, they seem to have held up fairly well and remain way above the going rate for this league …. but for how much longer? And as Robert points out, all of that is against a big reduction in away support between Championship and League One.

I take your point about the need for fan recruitment but I think you are perhaps being a bit pessimistic about yesterday’s attendance. There have been 16 home League One games this season so far and yesterday’s 1655 is actually the seventh biggest. Top and third - 1974 and 1894 - were during the festive period and the second biggest -1902 - was at the first home game after Gardiner finally left the building. The smallest league attendance is 1439 for the very first game, at the time of the boycott. Yesterday’s 1655 is also, predictably, above the average of 1625. The attached table showing the whole of League One makes interesting reading. I’d suggest that given the club has fallen to the third tier, attendances have held up not too badly, although I’m not sure for how long this might be sustained.

Obviously this statement is to be welcomed but, given the number of upturns and downturns there have been in this crisis even since mid-summer, that welcome must remain cautious until the bones carry more meat. Those attending cover all three areas of concern since these individuals hold most of the debt, include the joint owners of the car park lease and account for around half the shares. I note that the Charitable Trust and the McGilvrays weren’t represented. Between them they account for more than a quarter of the equity but it is, of course, impossible to guess any reasons - innocuous or sinister - for their absence. We also don’t know the extent of agreement that was reached, and in particular how much if any of the debt has been volunteered to be written off, and how many shares have been handed back - or indeed donated to the cause. The benefits of share movement could make impacts respectively of up to 5 and 10 times the value of the shares in question. I have to say that I am also mildly encouraged by the suggestion that there could be a large local presence in any initiative. We await in hope.

Precisely. I’ve been trying here to highlight how difficult the provision of a new stadium was even back in the mid-90s for a brand new initiative of a club, with strong backing from the Local Enterprise Company and a great deal of public funding plus the incentive of bringing national league football to Inverness. For starters, and before you even consider the huge obstacle of a site, where would the substantial seven figure construction sum come from, given that the real value of the club’s assets is very likely exceeded by the extent of its liabilities? The manner in which debts were allowed to accumulate is open to intense criticism, but that money is actually owed and it would be a generous creditor indeed who would accept less than £1 in the £ if the club had any prospect of wallowing in the kind money a brand new stadium would cost. Unfortunately, I sometimes detect the sentiment that the local community somehow owes ICT a living in some way. It doesn’t.