Jump to content

DoofersDad

+06: Site Sponsor
  • Posts

    5,735
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    275

DoofersDad last won the day on June 9

DoofersDad had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

42,909 profile views

DoofersDad's Achievements

International Player

International Player (7/10)

  • Great Support Rare

Recent Badges

5.5k

Reputation

  1. The statement from the club today may not contain all we would like to hear and it may have the emphasis all wrong, but it brings much better news than we feared. The most positive part of the statement is the reference to "hugely positive discussions currently ongoing with a number of potential new investors". This suggests there are at least 2, and probably more, people ready and willing to put sufficient money into the club to save it from administration and that the discussions are pretty advanced. It really is important to acknowledge that these kind of negotiations are usually very difficult. Those willing to invest will not be wanting to throw their money into a bottomless pit. They will want to put conditions on their investment such as who is on the Board of Directors and who isn't; what the football model should be; what the management structure should be; how the finances are structured; what the relationship with supporters bodies should be etc. Crucially, they will want to know how much, if any, of the loans made to the club by the former chairman and other directors they expect to get back. Different potential investors and the current Board will have different views on these topics and somehow, they need to reach a consensus which they are all happy enough with before new investors will commit. I don't think the statement would have been released with such positive wording unless they were agreed in principle about the way forward. It is encouraging that the Supporters Trust have been in dialogue with the club during this time. However, just like any other party involved in negotiations, they need to respect the positions of others and be prepared to compromise. Fans wanted the Kelty scheme scrapped: it has been scrapped. Fans wanted the Chairman gone; he's gone. Fans wanted the CEO out: he's resigned and if not quite gone, he's going. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that the club and potential investors will expect the Trust to give them something back. That something is what the Trust has put in their statement. Yes the message is different from that made after the meeting in the Caley Club, but so it should be! The situation is radically changed from then, and it has changed because people were rallying round the Trust to give a united message. That message has been listened to and acted upon. I think the Trust have been doing a brilliant job in what is probably the most difficult period in the club's history. The potential investors may be willing to inject money into the club, but they probably don't have £500k sitting in a bank account. They will need to liquidate some assets to release lump sums or perhaps they are only able to inject money in installments. Meanwhile, bills have to be paid and staff need to be paid. Clearly, sales of season tickets and merchandise will help the cash flow. I fully understand the reticence many fans have in parting with money now. We all have good reason not to trust the club and for some, the purchase of a season ticket is a much bigger commitment than for others. Personally, I think it will be strategically good for some people to respond positively to the call to buy tickets and for others to hold back. It will give the club the message that the fans are acknowledging the progress being made but that further evidence of progress needs to be demonstrated. The message to the club will be that the fans are giving you some money but you will get more money when more assurances are given that the club's future is secure. The message to the fans effectively remains the same - it is a personal choice.
  2. Reluctantly, I think I have to agree with you. A competent Board would have sufficient business knowledge for a situation like this and a competent CEO would have made sure that relevant information about the club's affairs were accessible and understood both by the Board and by relevant staff who should be sufficiently trained to allow them to routinely cover in the CEO's absence. Unfortunately we have a Board that appears to have adopted a blind faith in Gardiner and have left him to it with little scrutiny over the years. The CEO himself clearly likes the power his position gives him. Knowledge is power and keeping knowledge from others makes his position more powerful. Sadly, the combination of the 2 probably makes him indispensable just now. Gardiner has resigned and will be leaving the club. He will need to find work elsewhere and it will be in his interests to be as helpful as he possibly can in assisting the club to achieve the best outcome possible from the unholy mess he and the board have created.
  3. It’s a bit like a mirror image of Monty Python’s “what have the Romans ever done for us” sketch. No prizes for guessing who Biggus Dickus is!
  4. No need for a physio if you've got no players With every new snippet of information, it looks more and more like the club's finished. I do so hope that I'm proved wrong and the club and the jobs of those who are totally blameless in this disaster are saved.
  5. Now up to £3630 with over 160 donations. . At this rate Aaron will be able to have the other knee done too
  6. I was rather gobsmacked when I read that too. Surgical repair is almost always the treatment for ruptured ACL injuries. Panos Thomas may have an extremely impressive CV in relation to knee injuries in sport, but if the club has referred Aaron to to a currently practicing orthopaedic surgeon, one would have expected the club to act on the professional advice of that surgeon. At the end of the day, it is Aaron's body we are talking about. If he wants to follow the route advised by the surgeon to whom the club has referred him, then the club should be actively supporting him in that.
  7. I am sure we could field a team of local lads next season, but I can't see we could field a team of local lads who would be good enough to stay in league one. They would certainly play for the shirt though. Frankly, if that was the scenario being offered by a new regime, I would bite your hand off to have that just now. The club would then have a couple of years to mend relationships with the fans, local businesses and the wider community. That would form a solid foundation for strengthening the team and moving forward in a sustainable and responsible way.
  8. Why would anybody buy a season ticket just now? We have no idea if there will even be a team to watch next season, and the likelihood is that the money would basically go straight into the administrator's pockets as their fee for winding the club up? What the Board and insolvency advisors need to know is that there is a willingness from the fans to buy season tickets and spend money if administration can be avoided with new management at the helm. The Supporters Trust's recent survey demonstrated there is a significant sum available. I, and no doubt many others, will be happy to put more money into the club than the sum I indicated in the survey. Fans are more than willing to dig deep to support our club, but first, it is vital that the club is under new and far more competent management.
  9. Let's make the probably rather rash assumption that we will actually have a team next season. The dreadful way the club is treating our players means there will hardly be any Inverness based players left. That means we will need to recruit more from elsewhere. But that will be a problem because the Board told us that was too expensive due to accommodation costs! But don't worry, folks. I think I know someone who might have a solution
  10. I think Gardiner has had aspirations for ICT to be like The Rangers. So he is currently tying up some loose ends that will put us into liquidation.
  11. Just when you think those in charge of the club couldn't be any more awful and incompetent, lo and behold, they prove us wrong. What a disgusting way to treat a long serving, core member of the team who, despite all the chaos around the club, actually wants to stay here. Let's face it, if there's one player we are going to need next season, it is a good keeper. And Mark is a very good keeper.
  12. Exactly. To my mind it was never an either/or issue. Whilst the club maybe presented it as such, the widely ridiculed Kelty option was presented as a done deal. There was absolutely no argument presented as to why it would save the sums stated or why it would produce a more competitive team. In reality, it was more likely to project us towards administration than staying put would. The value of the scheme to the Board seems to be that administration can now be blamed on the fans for rejecting the latest brilliant plan for keeping the club solvent.
  13. At that point, it was probably reasonable to be optimistic about the future. The big (and possibly, fatal) mistakes were firstly, a lack of attention to detail in the application and contracting processes and secondly, to assume the anticipated funds would materialise and to commit the money before we actually had it. Of course, there is always risk associated with business investment, but the Board were relying on income which was dependent on decisions taken by others over whom they had no say. In such circumstances, it is particularly important to ensure all paperwork is watertight. Clearly, it wasn't. With the financial position of the club as it was and the now apparent unwillingness of the directors to pump more money into the club, they should simply have kept things ticking over till the anticipated windfalls arrived. Instead, they sacked a manager just 6 games after having given him a new contract and replaced him with a big name ex-player with a very poor managerial record. In doing this they had to commit huge sums of money in paying off Dodds and those we went with him, whilst committing even larger sums to pay Fergusson and his team. Those who displayed this incompetence and recklessness need to be the first to dip deep into their pockets to help dig the club out of the mess for which they are responsible.
  14. It gets grimmer by the day. On 29th Feb, the club filed a change of accounting reference date, so that the end of year accounts were to end on 30th May rather than the 31st. I seem to recall that someone (Yngwie?) explained that this was a common accounting device which allowed the due date for the current accounts to be submitted to be extended by a month. It sounds as if that would be done in the event of knowing there was a problem with the accounts. None of the few communications from the Board have made any reference to there being any problem with the accounts nor have they enlightened latterly why the accounts have not been filed at Companies House. In his Wyness Shuffle interview, Morrison said that it would be easy to provide any potential investor with relevant due diligence information. Bennett was saying that Gardiner had been tasked with seeking new investment from local firms. Surely, if anything, he should be tasked with getting the accounts sorted. If Gardiner is the one chasing potential investors, it seems unlikely that anyone is going to test Morrison's claim regarding due diligence. Gardiner would probably have more success going to Celtic Park to recruit for an Orange march than getting local businesses to invest whilst he is still on the payroll. It is beginning to look increasingly unlikely that we will have the pleasure of welcoming the mighty Annan Athletic back to Inverness this season.
  15. This is at the heart of the problem. It is all very well for the club to say we all need to pull together, but what exactly are we supposed to be pulling together on? Given the club's recent record of catastrophic decision making, are we simply expected to dip deeper into our pockets to finance more bad decisions taken without any consultation? In his recent Wyness Shuffle interview, Morrison stated that the 2022/3 cup run windfall of around £800k was used to pay off creditors. He also said that the club currently owe £300k to creditors. In other words, the club effectively has at least £500k less debt than it had at the start of the season. So what's the problem? Well, the problem is that they have made decisions based on money they were assuming would materialise but which hasn't. And it hasn't materialised because they mismanaged the BESS application and signed contracts which were not sufficiently robust. Communication on these issues has been poor and consultation non-existent. In the meantime, cash flow was managed because directors were putting money into the club on a loan basis in anticipation of forthcoming windfalls. Now there is no imminent windfall and the directors don't feel able to put more money into the club. The answer? Fans and new "investors" to put money into the club as part of the pulling togetherness! But hold on a minute! Morrison and Munro have both lodged charges against the club in order to protect their loans. In effect, this means that we, the long suffering fans, are expected to dip into our pockets and fork out money which can then be paid back to the very people who got the club into the mess in the first place! I am more than willing to spend as much on the club in League 1 as I did when we were in the Premiership - and more, but I don't want my money being used to pay back directors' loans. I want my money to help pay the wages of the players and the hard working staff at the stadium. I want my money to help with some of the stadium improvements required to address the issues raised in the Supporters Trust's matchday experience survey. If the club want us to "pull together" then I am more than willing to do so. But first, those who got us into this crisis have to take the lead and accept their accountability. Morrison and Munro should withdraw the charges they hold against the club and all directors who have bankrolled the club with loans should publicly declare that they are writing off those loans. Not only would that demonstrate accountability on their behalf, it would open the door to major investors who will not want to have a significant amount of their money swallowed up by repaying those who are responsible for the mess.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy