DoofersDad

7 of those 13 companies were dissolved. 4 of those 7 companies never had any accounts submitted prior to them being dissolved. Makwana resigned from one company in October 22 which remains technically active but appears to be simply existing. Makwana is involved in 5 active companies as follows:- Seventy7 Ventures Ltd. This deals in "management consultancy activities other than financial management". Makwani is the sole director and only employee. Latest accounts show net liabilities of £15,898. On 28th June this year, a charge was filed against the company by a Jersey based company. If Seventy7 Ventures cannot repay the unspecified loan, the Jersey firm has the claim on all aspects of an unspecified project. I can't see anything other than ICT being "the project". Cryptolytx Ltd. This is involved in "other publishing activities" and "new agency activities". He is the sole director and there are no employees. Net liabilities are £19,935. ! am for change C.I.C. (whatever that means). The nature of the business is described as "other social work activities without accommodation not elsewhere classified". There are 2 other directors. It was founded in July 2022. No accounts have been submitted and they are overdue. A notice was published just 5 days ago that "unless cause is shown to the contrary, the company will be struck off the register and dissolved not less than 2 months after the date shown." ELI APP Ltd. Involved in "Other information technology service activities", Makwana is the sole director and only employee. Net liabilities are £86,945. An active proposal to strike off is currently suspended due to an objection. Enterprise Lab Ltd. This company apparently provides "educational support services". Makwana is the sole director and one of 2 employees. The company has net liabilities of £50,634. There is absolutely nothing in all of this that would give me the confidence to give Makwana £10 towards running an ice cream van, let alone taking control of our football club. There are red flags everywhere. It would be good if the club would explain to its shareholders, season ticket holders and supporters in general, what it is about Mr Makwana that gives them the confidence that he can both finance a majority stake holding in the club and then finance and manage the long term development of the club.

I was kicking a ball around with grandchildren yesterday. I'm 70 and the grandson is 7 and I reckon we both showed more ability than Ferguson junior. Here's a thought. Get us both signed up and we could maybe change the club's name to Seventy7 FC?

Dumbarton in the league next week. They finished last in their group in the league cup, so how we do against them will provide a better indicator of the challenge ahead.

Who knows? If this company are the real deal and genuinely want to make the club successful they should be open to sharing what their business record is, what their plans are and how they are going to be funded. There is local funding to be tapped into, but it wont be released if local people and businesses are kept in the dark. All the fancy guff in Makwana's quotes count for absolutely nothing. Of course, I hope that there is real substance here and that Makwana can deliver something positive and sustainable. And if it follows a very different and innovative business model, then great! But "maybe" and "perhaps" simply don't cut it. This is OUR club. ICT is not a plaything for some self-styled entrepreneur with little evidence of business success.

HT. 2-0 FT. 4-0 ICT. Brooks Opp Murray Crowd 1502

The Courier has it that Seventy7 Ventures are already the new owners with a majority shareholding. I think that reflects the standard of local journalism these days rather the reality of the situations. But fair play to the Courier, they have done a bit of digging and quote Makwana reflecting on his proposals at Hayes and Yeading. Makwana said this:- “For the last three years I have been studying football ownership, management and discovering good and bad practices. “Football is no longer a business entity that can rely on owner/chairman to keep injecting money in the bid that they will secure a payday by getting into Championship or Premier League – in fact some reports suggest nearly two-thirds of Championship clubs are operating with negative EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation). “The business of football has grown up and matured, football is now actually the last element in the business cycle… commercialisation, fan engagement, entertainment, leisure options and community building is paramount for success. “It is my opinion that blockchain technology and digital assets are integral to the transition of business success.” “One of the first things I want to instil at the club is better facilities for fans and visitors plus develop a multifunctional site that will allow us to maximise usage of space,” he said about Hayes and Yeading United. “New food and beverage is being introduced over the next 12-24 weeks. The reconfiguration of the ground floor of the main stand will bring better facilities for the staff and playing team. “The construction of the upper floor of main stand will bring a chairman’s lounge, media suite plus two incredible function halls (150 and 500 capacity). Three new entrances: Directors and Media, Terrace Bar and Atrium will provide a more logical flow. “Fan Park will be pedestrianised and allow for match day hospitality and private events. New changing facilities and referee rooms for the 3G pitch.” He added: “There is a lot of work to do but the early indications to the proposed strategy is showing a 10x return on the investment and rollout”. It all sounds too good to be true. 10x return on the investment and rollout! And yet he never did get to take over Hayes and Yeading. It would be good to know exactly why!

It is clear from the Trust's statement that Seventy7 Ventures have not bothered to consult with the Trust during this process. If I was going to pump £2M into a football club I would certainly be wanting to know the expectations of the club's fans and would be shaping proposals accordingly so that I had the fans onside. But then, if I were putting money into a football club, it would be with a view of trying to make the football club successful. I'm not seeing anything in the club statement that gives me any confidence that this strangely named company has the remotest interest in the success of the club. The Trust's statement seems to me a little bit tongue in cheek in that it refers to returning to be a successful community based football club. Clearly, if Seventy7 Ventures become majority shareholders they will call all the shots and the club will become less of a community club than it has ever been. From what little we know, this "deal" has asset stripping written all over it. I sincerely hope I am wrong but we need to know an awful lot more before we can be assured that this is going to benefit the club in the short term, let alone provide longer term security.

HT. 0-1 FT. 1-2 ICT. Adam Brooks Opp. Innes Murray Crowd 602

True, but the Stadium Regulations give plenty of excuses to evict people from the ground. For instance, we are all "obliged not to behave in a manner which may reasonably be expected to cause any persons to be alarmed, upset or annoyed." I think it reasonable to expect that the CEO and the club Board would claim to be both upset and annoyed by chants of "sack the Board" or "Gardiner out", notwithstanding that the wording of such protest is not threatening, vulgar or abusive. The same goes for any written banner with that message. Of course, by the same token, we could reasonably argue that we are alarmed, upset and very annoyed that certain people are still in the building and therefore by the club's own regulations, they should be removed from the building! In practice, as long as folk stay off the pitch, there really is nothing the club can do to prevent a significant number of people making a non-threatening, non-abusive protest in the stadium before, during or after the match.

They must have boycotted the game! About 20 or so in the South stand.

Really good performance in the first half. Good, slick passing and looking to get behind their defence 3 well worked and well taken goals with 2 other excellent efforts. Indeed it was the most entertaining half of football I've seen since Ferguson arrived. 2nd half was not so good. Looked as though we set out to keep things tight and not allow Rose back in - which we did well enough but at the expense of ambition at the other end. Lots of subs from both sides resulted in a lot of passing the ball in the middle of the park before giving the ball away followed by Rose passing the ball in the middle of the park before giving it back to us. The starting XI all did well which is encouraging, but clearly we have a very limited and inexperienced squad. Bonnyrigg were awful though. Bigger tests lie ahead. If money for the squad is not forthcoming we will be hard pressed to survive in league 1.

This. The first home game of the season has now come and gone. 682 paid to attend compared to 1077 against the same team in the same competition this time last year. That's a drop of just under 37%. So what do these figures tell us? Probably not a lot. Had we not had all the appalling behaviour from the club management in the last season and had simply got relegated, the crowd would likely have been well down in any case. Remember, this time last year memories of giving Celtic a fright in the Scottish Cup final and getting close to promotion were still fresh. There was optimism for the new season rather than the disappointment of being in a league below. In addition ticket prices have risen. Like highlandexile, I too, after much thought, bought a ticket for the game and, as an OAP, was rather surprised to have to pay £14 - a 40% increase from last year. I wonder if this increase in prices put a few people off as well? How many people who would normally have come decided to stay away because of the current situation? We can't know for sure but it can't be more than a couple of hundred at most. In the total absence of any active protest, the club will spin the lower attendance as apathy and fans simply not supporting the club. It is clear that the threat of withholding money from the club has not produced the desired result of the departure of the CEO, indeed, it appears that he may be trying to engineer a permanent role again under new investors. That being the case, I'm not sure there is much point in continuing to withhold money. I certainly do not want to be contributing to the CEO's wages, but I do want to help ensure that the young lads starting out in the professional game and the hard working staff behind the scenes get paid. That's my personal view in the current situation but I fully appreciate that others see things differently.

The problem is that nobody really is shouting it from the rooftops. A boycott on its own will be spun by the club as fans simply not supporting the club and having lost interest now that we've dropped into league 1. If everybody who earlier said they would withhold their money, still came down to the stadium and loudly protested outside the ground for the duration of the match, then that would be positive action. If there were more fans outside the ground than inside, it would have a real impact and would be newsworthy. The club certainly couldn't turn round and say we had lost interest. We could also show our support for the young lads by singing chants for them as well as the anti Gardiner stuff. I'm sure that if that was to happen, many who have bought tickets would also stay outside and join in the protest. Of course we want Gardiner gone, but the young lads need and deserve our support too.

HT. 0-1 FT. 1-2 ICT. MacLeod Rose. Rodden Crowd. 927

Was that a Ryan air? ICT = Inverness Christie Thistle?

We'd dump him

This news does not ease my concerns about the future of our club at all. Firstly, I assume that if the Americans are being negotiated with on an exclusivity basis, the other 2 potential foreign investors have somewhat less than the £2million the Americans are reported as offering. But £2m is not going to get us out of the mess if, as reported, ex and current directors are owed £2.1m for repayment of loans. Money is required to pay off other creditors, pay the wages, strengthen the squad and make improvements to the structure of the stadium etc. It only serves to further emphasise the sheer contempt the club has had for the supporters and shareholders of the club. If these directors felt it necessary to put that sort of money into the club on a loan basis, then they should have convened an EGM at that point to appraise the "extended family of the club" of the gravity of the financial situation. Presumably the club were relying on the Battery Farm and Car Park scheme to bail them out and allow them to continue as before. A bit of honesty at an EGM and a call for people to work constructively might have resulted in alternative ways of generating an income stream to keep the club afloat, perhaps moving towards community ownership. It is the loan debt to the former chairman and other directors which is the single biggest threat to the future of the club. It is a debt which should never have been allowed to develop and which, if the creditors have any goodwill towards the football club, should now be written off. With those loans written off, then the club could have a promising future with a £2m injection.

You're a point ahead of all of those who appear not to have realised the new NPL season is up and running!

Board Director Panos Thomas has been quoted by the Courier saying “Directors are working tirelessly to attract new investment in the club. Indeed, there has been welcome interest and I would ask everyone for their patience as we progress matters.” I wonder if this sudden breaking of the silence is to dampen down expectation following what Ferguson said at his pre-match press conference. Thomas's words don't exactly suggest any kind of deal is imminent. Indeed they don't even imply there are any meaningful discussions going on at all. He then said, “We are delighted to see youth being given a chance with several Academy players featuring in the squad and we are confident the team is ready to face the first challenge with focus and commitment." Yeah, right! This from a Director of the same Board who only recently were "delighted" to announce a move of our training base to Kelty. This move would have virtually disenfranchised our Academy players unless they were willing to move away from their families and friends and relocate in Fife. And this far reaching decision was made without any discussion with those who it would most affect. Thomas goes on to say, “Invaluable will be the support of our loyal fans, including those who will be travelling to Annan tomorrow, and everyone else in the extended family of the club throughout the season. We need you to stay with us as we strive to improve the financial stability of the club.” I will certainly stay with the team and support our local youngsters, but no Panos, I am not going to stay with you and your colleagues after all you have done to tear apart the "extended family of the club". The financial stability of the club will improve when those responsible for the current instability are out of the door.

One for Graeme Shinnie for Aberdeen too.

HT 1-0 FT. 2-1 ICT. Longstaff Annan. Goss Crowd 386

Ferguson's thought's dominate the back page of todays "Courier" too. The interesting thing for me is that he refers on a couple of occasions to a "new owner". The current "owners" of the club are the shareholders. I don't know whether Ferguson is simply using the word "owner" loosely to mean someone who is going to put significant money into the club and who would head up a new Board, or whether the new money is conditional on the investor becoming a majority shareholder. The first scenario would be a very welcome development but the 2nd option would represent a major change of business structure for the club and would, I assume, require approval of the existing shareholders. It would appear that nobody at the press conference picked him up on this point. It would be good to get some clarification. It was good that someone asked him about Aaron Doran. I accept that the decisions taken may be down to the club, but I don't accept that he can brush away accountability so easily. As team manager, he has a very clear role in terms of communicating with his players and discussing issues which impact on their careers.

It simply means giving encouragement to the players and not blaming them for poor results regardless of whether you choose to attend games or not.

SPFL rules state:- "G57 It is the responsibility of Premiership Clubs participating in League Matches and Play- Off Matches to ensure that a chartered physiotherapist or equivalent is present throughout each such match to attend to their respective Players and, if necessary, Match Officials and it is the responsibility of each of the other Clubs participating in League Matches and Play-Off Matches to ensure that a person with an appropriate physiotherapy qualification is present throughout each such match to attend to their respective Players and, if necessary, Match Officials. G58 Only those qualified as above should treat Players and Match Officials on the field of play. G59 For all Official Matches other than League Matches and Play-Off Matches, there must, at least, be in attendance an individual with appropriate emergency aid training." So no physio required for a friendly but one will be required for league matches. It is interesting that only in the Premiership are clubs required to have a chartered (registered) physio or equivalent in attendance, but this rather begs the question of how you define what is "equivalent" to a Chartered Physiotherapist. Also, what is meant by "an appropriate physiotherapy qualification" if it doesn't require that person to be registered with the professional regulating body. Bottom line though, is that for league matches we will be required to have someone with a good bit more training that a first aider to be present.

We will do very well simply to to avoid relegation from League 1 this season. The important thing for the coming season is survival as a club rather than survival in league 1. What happens off the park will be more important than what happens on the park. This season needs to be about a new Board and a new administrative lead working with the supporters to develop a more sustainable business model and an operational strategy to move forward. The focus for the club for coming season must be that this time next year we can realistically look forward to the new season with optimism. On a footballing level my expectations for this season are low. It is good we still have a smattering of more experienced players but there is no getting around the fact that the bulk of the squad will be youngsters who have had very little or no experience at this level. On the plus side, it is a great opportunity for them to demonstrate that they can play at this level. Unfortunately, they are going to be asked to play in a style which is unlikely to be successful and which will be extremely boring to watch. Inevitably fans are going to be frustrated but we need to remember that the situation we are in is not the players fault. As fans we need to give these lads as much support as we can and direct our ire at those responsible for the mess we are in.