Charles Bannerman

Maybe even undercut the £1 paid for Rangers.

Interesting, isn’t it, the difference between the views of some people who take a central belt perspective and the local or locally sympathetic view. Also “Inverness could win their first eight matches next season…” Could they REALLY?

Well here’s one local player who won’t be going to Kelty. Anyone know what Rodgers’ contract status is?

I don’t think you’re too far wrong there! The vital component is Tullochs. The debt in 1999 before they came in was said to be £2.3M; that disappeared as a result of a deal over the stadium which was subsequently donated back to the club, Tulloch’s £729K in shares - the biggest single holding - was later donated to the ICT Charitable Trust and Tullochs built the North and South stands on less than 7 weeks to ensure that the team came back from Aberdeen early in 2005. For several years Tullochs controlled the Board and there were even a couple of very modest profits in there. The Tulloch interest had departed by the mid-2010s and it’s since then that financial decline has set in again. I’m not arguing a 100% cause and effect here because there will have been other factors but there’s a strong link between financial and playing success and the Tulloch involvement.

I would have to argue that the CC and the BF were pursued as means of attracting the large amount of money needed to bail a seriously financially challenged club out of a big hole, but they have only realised pennies in comparison. As a result, more than two years have been wasted on a wild goose chase instead of something far more useful, and as a result the club appears to be on the brink of insolvency. That to me is a financial disaster a bit like someone getting into a million pound debt but letting it run because they think they’ve won a pools jackpot - and then discovering it’s only a thousand quid.

Considering that we were told that the Battery Farm was going to take in £3.4M, I think that what has actually transpired must surely be classified as a failure alongside the scale of the club’s problems. And don’t start me on the Concert Company. I still cringe at the thought that what was talked up as a financial panacea failed miserably and left a lot of honest traders out of pocket whilst hammering the last nail into the coffin of the club’s credibility with the local business community. Meanwhile, Scot Gardiner presented the fact that the club had ring fenced stadium rent for itself before the CC went bust- hence increasing these traders’ losses - as some kind of achievement at the AGM. I suspect that there will be people in the very local business community that the club needs to get on board now shouting “Karma!!” and laughing their arses off at what is now happening.

Thanks Cif - I hadn’t been familiar with the term “retained earnings”!

This club has never been able to come especially close to generating income to match its football expenditure and I can’t see how anyone could conceivably think otherwise. For several years after the near financial collapse of 1999, £5M from Tullochs kept it going but more recently that has given way to raising extra share capital (significantly almost £1M from Muirfield Mills) and cadging loans such as from Ross Morrison. Unfortunately, two attempts to raise income by non-football means - the Concert Company and the Battery Farm - have been catastrophic financial failures and the former (or possibly arguably both) also brought severe reputational damage. Thank you for revealing that all-time losses come to £6.7M. I had only got as far as establishing £3.5M (more than half of that) within only the last six years, so it’s clear that the funding gulf is accelerating. I’ve made the ballpark estimate that, additional to initial stadium funding, ICT has cumulatively needed £10M of other people’s money to get to where it is today. But if you think that’s a lot, I would also estimate that the corresponding figure for Ross County is around £20M and in the last 10 years alone £11.4M in loans from its parent company have been written off, so loss making seems to be accelerating there as well. The difference between the two clubs is that Roy MacGregor has been a far larger, more reliable and longer term source of “bailout cash” than ICT’s. In fact the scale and longevity of Roy’s support have been quite remarkable - although what happens when that eventually dries up is another matter. As far as ICT is concerned, I’m struggling to see a sustainable way out of this…. but as sure as hell, decanting the first team to Fife sure isn’t among the options. On that particular subject, judging by what random people I’ve had casual conversation with over the last week, I have been absolutely dismayed at the laughing stock that the club has now become in the public eye.

Call an EGM and appoint Kristine CEO, Chair of a one person board and first team manager?

I’m surprised that no-one with expertise in subtitling has produced an ICT version of the famous “Downfall” clip.

I’m not able to access the full story but I follow that it’s emerged that the training facility in question is actually owned by Fife Council. This raises two questions. Can we assume that, before concluding the deal, ICT performed due diligence and established that Kelty Hearts’ arrangement with Fife Council allows them to perform the necessary sub-letting process? And can we assume that, before the arrangement was announced last Friday, ICT had established beyond doubt that the deal was over the line and certain to happen? If the answer to the second question is “no” then this project would appear to be a victim of the same “nothing could possibly go wrong” mentality that afflicted the Concert Company and the Battery Farm. The only difference this time is that something goes wrong.. it will be a matter of widespread celebration.

It doesn’t quite work that way with Caley Thistle. Nobody owns more than about 15% of the club and it would, for instance, require at least five parties, some of whom have a history of being at odds, to pull together 50% of the voting rights. I also see no way that anyone could sell anything to recoup their investments because the club is virtually worthless apart from the 70 years or so of lease left on the stadium site and the structures on it… whatever the market value of a football stadium is. The point being made by Allan MacKenzie (former Vice Chairman and commercial lawyer) at last night’s meeting was that if the club went into administration, the administrator could retain or dispose of things like contracts (including Kelty) and staff and pull together a new board, at which point major shareholders may feel more inclined to make what would be far safer further investment. However I believe that admin would have to be the decision of the current board… unless creditor could enforce it?

So how have performers in the Highlands in other sports, who are operating at levels considerably higher than third tier domestic football, have managed for a very long time?

Also… if there’s an enforced U-turn, then any subsequent insolvency event may end up being attributed (although not necessarily attributable) to that U-turn and those who (very rightly) pursued it.

£300K, if we make a ballpark estimate of £500 per month per head in shared accommodation, would represent 600 “person months” of accommodation - in other words, even if it was being paid for all 12 months, this would be enough to accommodate 50 people for a whole year. How many people require to be accommodated, given that a number of them are local? Even £200K would accommodate 33.

To be fair, Caley Thistle have also benefited significantly from other people’s money, albeit not to the same extent as Ross County. Tullochs put in £5 million between one thing and another during their period of involvement and there have been other significant inputs such as £800K from Muirfield Mills among £4 million in share uptake in addition to goodness knows how much chipped in by wealthy wellwishers over the years and especially recently. I would estimate the total to be in the ballpark of £10 million, and that’s not including “set up” support like £900K from the Common Good Fund and and £1.5M from other public bodies for the stadium. On the other hand, I would estimate that Ross County have been given something in the very rough region of £20M - including £11.4M in loans written off by its parent company in the last 10 years alone. The difference… apart from the scale involved… is that Caley Thistle’s gleanings have been hand to mouth and the product of scratching about in an emergency, whereas County’s subsidy has been stable and dependable (for as long as Roy opts to continue the support.)

Concert Company…. Battery Farm… Relegation…. Kelty. I thougly that bad new was only meant to happen in threes.

Unfortunately, I think there’s a bit of a Catch 22 there, DD, because this would mean that the club would lose those directors with the nous and common sense to see that moves like this are crazy, leaving behind a board even more devoid of talent.

Do we know when the board meeting was where the final decision to relocate was made, how many votes were for and against the move or better still which directors voted in which direction, the timescale of the entire decision and whether the directors were given the opportunity to express views before it was published on a statement that says that the club is “DELIGHTED” to make the announcement?

There was some discussion several posts earlier about sizes of shareholdings. I couldn’t find my original breakdown so I’ve done it again, but relative influence is complicated by the 900,000 shares held by Thistle and Caley (who controls them?) which come with votes only for election of directors, and also the Supporters’ Trust has an automatic 10% - but relative to what? Including or excluding these Thistle and Caley blocks? I’m going to assume that this relates to an election of directors so the voting shares number 4,902,300 + 544,700 for the ST, giving a total of 5,447,000 votes. I’ve revisited the latest Companies House Confirmation Statement, logged every shareholding of 50,000 and above and grouped them into the natural combinations with which many of us are familiar. Some of the percentages may be a bit lower than I guessed earlier since the ST is now included, but this all breaks down to:- Muirfield Mills (9 individuals as far as I can establish) - 820,450 shares (14.9%) ICT Charitable Trust (donated by Tullochs) - 729,500 (13.4%) Supporters’ Trust N/A (10.0% by definition) Mcgilvray family - 487233 (8.9%) Alan Savage/Orion - 467,006 (8.6%) Sutherland family - 300,250 (5.5%) David Cameron - 175,000 (3.2%) Roddy Ross - 170,000 (3.1%) George Fraser - 51,000 (0.9%) There are several other five figure holdings below 50,000 among a total of 549 holdings and they go right down to the most common holding which is the £250 that many people, including myself, bought in the original 1996 issue. I’m not 100% certain I've got the voting arrangements with respect to the Thistle and Caley block right, but all the same, this breakdown does give us a pretty good indication of the relative power blocks within the club - and also shows us that even the four biggest holdings still don’t come to 50%.

That’s 729,000 shares (just below 15% of the total), donated by Tulloch to the Charitable Trust so no longer in Tullochs’ ownership. The Supporters’ Trust also has a different category of holding, pegged to giving it 10% if any voting rights. These are the biggest holdings by single parties. I don't have the overall list to hand but the breakdown depends on what kind of alliances might be expected. For instance the Sutherland family aggregate quite a few but nothing close to a majority. There’s also a significant Savage/Orion block and a McGilvray block plus one or two others. However the biggest group aggregate seems to lie with Muirfield Mills consortium with around 18% (approx 900,000 shares) but no-one is close to having a controlling interest.

I’m sorry to suggest that at League One level, there may not be much Open All Mics coverage from reporters at the ground. On another tack, does this decision not also seem to reflect a “central belt mentality” where the Highlands are neither understood properly nor considered important enough to matter? If there’s a problem - attempt to apply a central belt solution.

That’s an interesting set of clubs you’ve come up with there. Stranraer, Queen of the South… and presumably the Angus clubs would be the likes of Arbroath, Forfar, Brechin and Montrose. Not exactly a litany of recent success.

This is so comprehensively absurd that I’ve only sufficiently recovered from the shock to comment on one aspect. One of the biggest contributors to the mess the club has got itself into is its failure to relate to and inspire the local community. In fact it’s far worse than that because a multitude of issues - not the least the Concert Company collapsing leaving local traders out of pocket while the club trousered a generous ground rent - have resulted in public perception hitting rock bottom (or at least so I thought until this emerged). There are also strong messages that the local business community has become greatly disenchanted with Inverness Caledonian Thistle. Then consider that supporter morale has never in 30 years been as low as now and and that there is unprecedented dissatisfaction with certain individuals in the club’s employ. All of this makes for a clear, urgent and overwhelming need for the club to rebuild bridges with all layers of the local community adds also to restore internal morale. So what do they do? They suddenly unplug the first team playing squad and management team from Inverness and send it 140 miles down the road to share facilities with a rival League One club - a direct competitor whose own promotion challenge will be greatly strengthened by the considerable rent…. from an arrangement that Inverness Caledonian Thistle tell us they are “delighted” (I did read that three times just to check) to announce. In other words they have selected one of the club’s big weak points… and taken the single course of action that’s guaranteed to make it even worse.

Interesting metaphor, given the alleged preferences of the CEO.