Charles Bannerman

This is about as clear as a puddle full of cow's poo! The main stand is part of the original Caledonian Stadium which, in 2001, passed to the ICT Charitable Trust as part of the process which spirited away £2M+ of debt which had accrued. As for what happened after that, if many people knew in the first place, then most of them will have forgotten. The impression was that a whole string of companies materialised and that Tullochs/David Sutherland and the Bank of Scotland were heavily involved in the process of removing that debt. That, however, still doesn't fully answer that part of the question. As for the North and South stands, Tullochs clearly played a major part in getting them there and Highland Council were deeply involved as well back then in 2005. The fact that Tulloch's offered to donate these stands to the club a little time ago possibly also implies an element of ownership. It's clear that Tullochs had a huge amount to do with the club's transition from impending administration in 1999/2000 to playing SPL football, debt free in a compliant stadium in 2005, but some of the specifics of ownership do seem obscure to say the least.

I would make two observations here. Firstly, comparisons between Roy MacGregor and Brooks Mileson are pretty tenuous, other than them both being football club sugar daddies. Firstly, Mileson was almost certainly propping up Gretna to a far greater extent than Roy is at Ross County. And, although no sugar daddy relationship is indefinitely sustainable, some are less unsustainable than others and I do believe that Roy's personal health and that of his businesses are in much better nick than was the case with Mileson. I never understood why the media made such a sycophantic fuss about Gretna since is was clear from the start that tis was going to go bellyup far sooner than later. And secondly, I'm not sure what is meant by "under funding". If that means that the club has been unable to earn enough to sustain its Premiership status, then this is probably true. On the other hand, if it means that not enough rich people have fulfilled the expectation that they put their hands in their pockets to subsidise a loss making business, as would not happen anywhere else in the business world, then that's a different matter.

After years of "Always In Our Shadow", "The Feeder Club" and the dreaded "Pride Of The Highlands", I am sure this is just the latest development of the last few months that Roy will be thoroughly enjoying. It took a long time and needed a lot of patience, perseverance and not a little cash, but for the moment, Roy appears to have won the financial war of attrition. I have no doubt that Billy McKay will be a good signing for Ross County, but this is also the latest of several moves where Caley Thistle have been well and truly upstaged by County. For instance few weeks ago, during a period of complete silence from this side of the first, three press releases came out in one day from Dingwall. These announced the identity of County's new general manager (amid an ongoing information vacuum about ICT's one), arrangements for the County Chairman's next face to face with the fans (say no more) and statistics for uptake resulting from the Jail End price cut (at a time when the ICT board were getting pelters over their ST announcement). Ross County also have a lovely new club shop while the portakabin struggles on at East Longman. Then there's the frequently highlighted differences between the two clubs' hospitality arrangements. Most fundamental of all, County have always been able to buy themselves out of trouble where necessary while the most Inverness have been able to do was the highly controversial signing of Marius Niculae, funded in exchange for 275,000 shares in the club. Not only have County managed to get the upper hand, they are also well and truly rubbing ICT's nose in it. I don't even know if there's still the equivalent of a red dot on here, and if there is people can give me as many as they like but you cannot escape recent realities which are simply footballing Darwinism - which differs from conventional Darwinism in that the "natural selection" is fuelled by cash.

You mean like Ross County scarves?

There is absolutely no doubt that the club needs to develop sales of merchandise from its longstanding arrangement of selling strips which haven't arrived yet from a clapped out portakabin with completely uncertain opening hours which is located more than a mile from the city centre. The problem is that there's a kind of Catch 22 situation where you can't start shifting the stuff until you have a viable outlet, but you can't afford a viable outlet until you have started shifting more stuff - and you don't have the necessary finances to be able to risk a failure. A relatively small supporter base tends to compound the problem and I think there is also a confidence issue. In other words, because over the years stuff has been late - sometimes very late - in arriving, the street cred of ICT merchandising isn't very good either. It seems that merchandising sales have been consistently failing to reach the kind of critical mass which would allow them to take off properly. I must also say that I am wondering if Hospitality has traditionally suffered from what's effectively the same problem? I am stating that as a question, since I haven't experienced hospitality for some years, but on the other hand I keep hearing adverse comments about it, and the lack of demand for it. The two issues may well be related. I don't know for sure. "Tartan tat shops" seems to be rather too generous a term for the toe curling premises in question, but indeed, why not try to interest these places in taking some ICT strips so the Tuwwerists can take something "Scaddish" back to "Littleville, Wyoming" (loved that one Kirkie!)

It seems to me almost to be part of football that clubs in general show a lot less urgency about publicising cup crowds than in the league.

Caman has to be commended for the thought and his concern, but I'm afraid I tend to echo Kingsmills' reservations. These are large premises so would come with a large rental after the capital cost of fitting out. It would therefore be very difficult to achieve the kind of turnover to make such an enterprise a going concern, and that's before you consider that this is located in the city centre which currently seems to have some kind of retailing bubonic plague. Furthermore, the location is in one of the less affluent and less central parts of the city centre. Indeed I always suspected that Farmfoods located there so their bargain basement pricing policy could attract a less affluent passing trade - many of whom in that neck of the woods will be Clachers who may not feel all that well disposed towards buying merchandise from "the city's only senior football team". There is no doubt that the current club shop is woefully inadequate, but I also suspect that its current turnover is so far short of what it would take to make the Farmfoods suggestion viable that even a major transformation would still, unfortunately, make this a non-starter.

I have now flicked on to this thread on several occasions since it was started, and every time, just for a split second, I misread the title as "The Iain Vigurs Enema"!

Stan, you are way out of date. I doubt if I've been in the Heathmount five times in as many years and couldn't even tell you if ICT illuminati still frequent the place. The Caley Club, where prices are hugely lower and profits go to the football club, has been a far more attractive proposition for years.?

I'll emphasise again, there may well - as Yngwie has also suggested - be nothing to this at all but, at the very minimum, it would be helpful to receive some clarification with respect to an increasing number of "internally consistent circumstantial factors".

It certainly doesn't, but a combination of the two motions does create the potential for that to happen - or for any correspondingly smaller sum(s) to be put in. Then there's the already stated conjecture that money may already recently have been put in for cash flow etc reasons and now needs converted into shares. The extra, total £1.1M of "callable up" share capital would represent 22% of the new maximum of 5M shares. Currently, the biggest holding is 729,000 with the ICT Trust (that's 15% of the revised total and much of it, I understand, began life as the Tullochs' stake). Next is 573,950 (11.5%), attributed by Companies House as of March 1st to the Highland Hospice but for all we know, these may have moved on since. They were donated by the Catto family to the Hospice and over 300,000 of them began life with the late Ian Fraser (Coffin John) who bought them in the 1996 share issue and subsequently sold them to Sandy Catto, although for exactly how much remains a matter of conjecture. Next come Alan Savage/Orion who have 275,000 (5.5%) which were a quid pro quo for bankrolling Marius Niculae's wages and Roddy Ross has 170,000. One or two of the club's "figures from the past" also still have significant five figure holdings, so a few people have a foothold at least.

!2th man - I've been a shareholder since the very first share issue in 1996 and attend more or less every AGM. When I was doing quite a lot of work as a journalist, this was something that I didn't want to say too much about, but now that I am steadily winding down towards complete retirement, I'm not all that fussy. On the pies and free entry thing, I have never made any apology whatsoever and am quite unrepentant about a pie and a cup of tea at a match which I am attending as a journalist being simply part of the job. I therefore don't even need to raise the book I wrote for free for the club in 1997 and which realised a £5K+ profit in order to salve my conscience with respect to a few pies. To digress about journalists, I have often wished that the club would take more advantage of journalists' interest in it rather than retreat into a cocoon of secrecy. Social media are fine for getting some things out quickly to those who spend their lives across them. But, although their devotees think that social media are the ultimate canine testicles, social media are also limited and superficial as well as incapable of conveying the kind of depth and nuance which are often required. As a result, conventional print and broadcast media remain the mainstream means of conveying information of substance. Unfortunately, though, ICT have consistently declined to take advantage of the goodwill which could be there towards the club among the conventional media. Your second sentence there is fortunately briefer and much more intelligible than the second sentence of the Notice of Meeting, which does appear to seek permission for existing shareholders' rights of a first shout at any new share issue to be waived. When you ask to create £1.1M in potential new share capital and to remove preferential treatment for existing shareholders, AND when that is also consistent with intensifying background chit-chat... well, I'm not going to make any dogmatic assertions, but questions must definitely be asked.

A couple of weeks ago, someone on here went off on one when I referred obliquely to the latest rumour which had been circulating. At that point I was unprepared to say more than that since it might still have simply been the next episode of idle speculation, to which I have an aversion. On the other hand, I did have a gut feeling, so compromised by putting down that modest marker. The calling of this EGM and its stated business, are, I have to say, now consistent with the original rumour in that they have the potential to facilitate what it suggested might happen. Subsequent comments on here also appear to support the suspicion that some form of money may soon be coming into the club - or indeed this may already have happened in the face of disappointing financial numbers and this needs converted into shares (or a bit of both). Since my original, much maligned ice-breaker on here, a fair bit of extra smoke appears to have been generated, posing the question of how much fire accompanies it?

Last Saturday I received, as an ICT shareholder, notice of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the company on August 3rd. Three doses of paracetamol and four cups of strong coffee later, I concluded that the twin 200-odd word sentences of compressed legalese defining the agenda meant that 1) The Board wants to increase potential share capital to £5M. (According to the latest accounts, it is £3.9M, so that would imply asking permission for the release of 1.1M shares to the market); and 2) They are asking the current shareholders to waive their rights of pre-emption (ie "first shout") on any subsequent allotment (which appears to mean that they could then be sold to anyone the Board chooses). I have been surprised at how little public reaction there has been to this, especially on here. I do know of a friend who has also received the same communication and it's clear from one of his earlier posts that Caleyboy has as well. On the other hand, this seems to have generated virtually no "talk of the steamie" and indeed as of this morning (Thur) I have become aware of a number of shareholders who apparently have no knowledge of this meeting. (Admittedly, the legalese is so intense that anyone could perhaps be forgiven for not realising what they had received!!) Clearly this begs the question "Why?". Is the "major investor" that people have been speculating about for years now waiting in the wings, and these combined resolutions would clear the way for a major uptake? Or is this, despite the Manager having already made several signings, for team building, as the Chairman's covering letter appears to hint at? Or is there any link to the "conspiracy theory" which has been circulating that there was a considerable deficit from last season, which now may need covered retrospectively? Or is it to finance getting rid of the puddles in the pie queue?

Kudos to QoS for a civilised and sociable initiative.

Any idea what they've actually been doing in that department OCG?

I would certainly have a fat chance of getting a wage from anyone if my spelling, punctuation etc. were as bad as yours!

There are just so many rumours flying about just now. I heard another one this morning, but because it's no more than a rumour and a well tried one at that, I'm not going to propagate it. Rumours tend to be like new manager predictions - 90%+ of them are wrong.

I think 12th man is trying to suggest that there's every chance that there's a perfectly non-sinister explanation for this.

On the other hand, you may be attributing the SFA with a completely undeserved degree of common sense! For all any of us knows, if a director stands down and then returns, maybe the whole process has to be gone through again.... just in case the individual concerned has become an unfit and improper person in the interim!

That's a very fair point about King in a scenario where the SFA could presumably constrain clubs with respect to which names they can forward to Companies House until appropriate, although obviously with no powers over Companies' House itself.

I see what you're saying but, much as the SFA might like to believe the contrary, I wouldn't imagine Companies House waits for the SFA to tell them who they can and cannot list as the director of a registered UK company.

Despite fairly heavy hints from both Kingsmills and RandBC, I don't think Garrincha quite gets it yet!

That is too polite! The original comment about Kevin McNaughton is complete and unconsidered nonsense, as Kingsmills points out in the second part of his own.

Charter a plane to the former RAF Edzell and get a taxi from there?