DoofersDad

It will be a huge relief to all the lads to have escaped the cuts. I am sure they will be hugely motivated and I am also sure that following on from Charlie's comments last week, there will be a more attacking approach to the game. Dumbarton have the poorest defensive record in the league so taking a few risks going forward should bring rewards. Interestingly, they have also scored more than the top 2 in the league so we still need to keep it reasonably tight at the back. I'm sure the away support will be a good bit louder than the home support and will be much appreciated. I've got a good feeling about this one.

Surely it is more in line with hiring the stadium out for concerts (which worked well) rather than setting up your own company to run them? The restaurant franchise would pay the club a rent and take the profits. Potential opportunities too for vastly improving the hospitality options on match days. Certainly worth exploring, I would have thought, as part of a strategy of making best use of the assets of the stadium?

I definitely agree that discretion is the better part of valour, particularly when the person who is threatening you has more money to spend on lawyers than you do. Threats of legal action are often made to intimidate people and to stop others from making information public which shows the person up in a bad light. Such behaviour therefore often reflects a recognition by the person making the threats that there is plenty of such information which could be revealed. Of course, it is also true that some people are subject to malicious and unfounded allegations. In those cases, legal action is more likely to be taken without being preceded by the threat of it.

I thought James Stephen spoke extremely well. He comes across as a very competent individual who genuinely wants to do what is best for the football club. I was quite heartened by what I heard. Good to get confirmation that assets of the stadium are firmly in the control of the administrators and not with Ross Morrison. Ownership of the land surrounding the stadium is not so clear, but one way or another, the process should provide clarity on that soon.

Excellent Summary!

I'm afraid I agree with STFU on this one. The reality is that there are varying degrees of support for the club ranging from those who go to all the games they can, who buy a lot of merchandise and help behind the scenes, to those who want the team to do well but who rarely, if ever go to a game or buy any merchandise. There is absolutely no reason why somebody at the bottom end of this range of support should be expected to pay good money to watch poor quality football when they would rather be doing something else, or to buy merchandise they don't really want. To imply they have some sort of civic duty to do so will only alienate people and make it less likely they will spend money in the future. The challenge for those of us who put our hands in our pockets and support the team regularly is to persuade others that it is worth spending a bit more money on the club. We can't directly do much about the quality of the product on the pitch, but we can help to make the matchday experience a little better. An example of this is the work the Supporters Trust has done in making improvements to the bar. Having a bar which is open for longer hours, serves better beer and and is generally more welcoming will perhaps persuade a few more people to come to matches and those who already do, to spend a little more.

A big thank you too to all the Trust Board members for organising the meeting and for working so hard recently on our behalf. It is great to see the improvements to the bar and to have locally brewed draught beer available. There has also been a lot of less visible work going on behind the scenes in developing the rapport between the Trust and the Club and this was reflected in the fact that both the acting Chairman and acting CEO spent so much time prior to the game in discussing some of the issues the club is facing. It is important to note that both Charlie and Scott appeared to be supportive of a fans' representative on the Club's Board of Directors going forward. If there is to be a fans' representative on the Club Board at some point soon, it is important that they can be seen to be as representative as possible. Whoever is going to take over at the helm of the club in the future may need convincing of the benefit of a supporters' representative. In order to convince them, the Trust needs to have a high membership and to be seen to be actively supporting the club in various ways. So, if you haven't joined the Trust yet, now would be a good time to do it!

That would seem to suggest they don’t have any other offers and maybe no meaningful potential interest for a post administration situation. It’s looking grim.

Cullen skint or Cullen stink by the looks of it.

Gardiner "I take no interest in the views of disgruntled people who ultimately failed at their jobs. So why are you threatening lawyers' letters left, right and centre then, Scot?

I agree. Nobody is going to want to shell out millions simply to bail out the people who got the club into this mess and who, it would appear, would rather see the club go to the wall and people lose their jobs than write off their loans. The club will be a far more attractive proposition after the administrators have wielded their axe and we can only hope that someone emerges who wants to run a football club rather than a speculative business enterprise with a football team tagged onto it.

The Courier reporting that Wednesday is the deadline for any offers to buy the club or of investment. The Board will then meet at the end of the week to evaluate the offers received. There is no confirmation whether any offers have actually been received. If no offers are received, then presumably there is no alternative to the Administration route and they might be able to put something out on Wednesday to that effect. Silence on Wednesday might therefore indicate that offers have been received. I therefore look forward to no statement on Wednesday.

If Gardiner pursues his threats of defamation actions, some things will be easier to prove that others. One that should be easy to clarify is Gardiner's assertion that the Board and Savage agreed that Savage would become a Club Director, only for Savage to then resign the next day. The Club has stated that the communication to Companies House was an administrative error with, I seem to recall, someone simply assuming that he had been made a Director given the authority he had been delegated. If Savage had been appointed as a Director, this could only be done at a formal meeting of the Board and it would be recorded in the Minutes of the meeting. Whilst the Minutes will be confidential, there is surely no reason why the Board can't issue a statement to confirm the Savage had not been appointed as a Director, if that is the case. My concern here is that this is a strange thing for Gardiner to allege if it isn't true. If it is true, then Savage and the Board have some questions to answer. The Board have more important things to address in the immediate future, but hopefully some clarification will be forthcoming in the fairly near future.

Thanks. I've had a look at the Model Articles of Association and I think you're probably right. If so, then the Battery Company and any potential profit from it would not be a consideration for the administrators.

Are you sure? My understanding was that the Battery Storage company was set up specifically with the Club as the parent company, so to speak. This is why the Club was listed as the "relevant entity" with the powers to appoint and remove Directors. This is entirely different from the Concert Company which was really just a renaming of one of Morrison' redundant companies. Apart from the Stadium being listed as the registered address, there is nothing in the documents to suggest the Club had any legal involvement. The subsequent allocation of shares in the Battery Company to the 3 (now former) directors of the club may well have been a ruse to shield any proceeds from Administration and would have been done with the blessing of the club. Whether or not it was the intention to also remove the Club's control over who the Director's are, the fact remains that there is nothing in the Companies House records to suggest that control has been removed. Therefore it is important to know if this is still in place, regardless of whether it is an admin failure or not. If it is, and if the administrators have the legal power to take over the controlling role, they could remove the current Directors and replace them. They could then issue further shares at a nominal £1 each so that the shareholding of the 3 current shareholders is greatly diluted and then sell the company to someone who would take a gamble on the appeal being successful. The administrators will be interested only in how much they could get for the company now, rather than securing it for potentially much larger future profit. Risking £200k for a potential profit of 10x that might be attractive to the Makwanas of this world. Currently any profit to the club from the Battery Company is dependent on the non legally binding promise of 3 former club directors who have yet to write off their loans and have thereby plunged the club into crisis. If the Administrators ensured that the bulk of any profits came directly to the club, then the club itself would become significantly more attractive to any potential bidder.

Definitely rolling for me too. Two of the questions I put to the Supporters Trust list were as follows:- Can the club explain what the implications for the administration process are of the Charges Mr Morrison and Mr Munro have lodged against the Club at Companies House. If the debts payable to these 2 cannot be paid, will the assets detailed in the Charges become the legal property of Morrison and Munro or does the administration process invalidate the charges? Mr Morrison and Mr Cameron are the sole directors of ICT Battery Storage Ltd. They together with Mr Munro are the shareholders. However, the Companies House records list the Club as a "person with significant control" with the right to remove or appoint directors, to have 75%+ voting right and to have 75%+ of shares. So if we go into administration, would the administrators have the power to take back control and effectively include the Battery company as an asset of the club which might then be sold to a third party to help pay other debts? I was unable to attend the meeting but I have now had the chance to watch the video. Whilst the points in my questions weren't specifically addressed, it appeared to me that Alan Savage was confident that the administration process would deal satisfactorily with the outstanding debt. There also seemed to be confidence that should the Battery appeal be won, money to the club will follow. I don't share that confidence on either point. The document regarding the floating charges lodged at Companies House seems to me to suggest that the charges would automatically be enforced should the Club initiate the Administration process. I am simply a layman in these matters but if the charges were to be put into effect, that would mean that the assets of the club become the property of Morrison. Clearly Alan Savage know far more than I do about these things and he seems confident in the process, but nevertheless, it would be good to get some expert clarity on how the wording on these various documents impact on the administration process. It is worth noting that Morrison's colleagues on the Board presumably would all have had to agree to the conditions in the Charge document as a condition of Morrison making the loan. All 3 of the current Board members should, therefore be able to clarify exactly what the implications of this document are. In particular, Scott Young was the Director who signed the document agreeing to the terms on behalf of the Board. Hopefully the Supporters Trust will be following up with the club and seeking answers to any pertinent questions which weren't fully answered at the meeting.

Below is the text of Will Clark's report in the Courier. Interim chairman Scott Young says administration is the most likely outcome at Inverness Caledonian Thistle next week. However, he says there is still a chance of interested buyers agreeing a deal to takeover the club by next Wednesday. He was speaking as Inverness Caledonian Thistle held an open meeting to talk about the perilous financial situation it is facing. Inverness Caledonian Thistle say they need to raise £200,000 by Wednesday, October 16 or the club will be forced to go into administration and become insolvent. Inverness also need to find between £1.4 and £1.6 million so they can continue until the end of the season. It was reported that there has been expressions of interest from Denmark, United Arab Emirates and United States about investing in the club. Young says for any deal to save the club from administration, it must happen by Wednesday, October 16. But he says at present, administration at Inverness Caledonian Thistle is the most likely course of action. He said: “I think at the minute it is probably the most likely route that we will have to go down. “But I am a glass half full, rather than a glass half empty and I still remain optimistic that we might be able to get something over the line before then. “We may not, in which case, I and the board can hold our hands up that we tried and looked at every option that was available to us. “If we go down the administration route, we will embrace that and we will look to come out of it even stronger. “But there are communications with several interested parties.” Around 200 people turned out to the open meeting on Monday night at the Caledonian Stadium where they had the opportunity to ask the board questions. Along with Young, also taking questions were directors Graeme Bennett and Gordon Fyfe, chief executive officer Charlie Christie, honorary president Roddy Ross and financial consultant Alan Savage. Young was pleased with the turnout at the meeting, saying it showed fans cared for the future of the club. “I am a fan first and foremost before being a director. We were as honest as we could be to questions and I think fans appreciated that. They might not have agreed with everything we said or we have done. But they realise the situation that we are in. They will go away more understanding than they were before the meeting tonight.” He added: “All going well I see us having a future, I don’t know what kind of future at the minute, but hopefully a future where we can learn a lot of things.” Alan Savage, who was appointed as a financial consultant for Inverness Caledonian Thistle believes that administration is the best way forward for the club. He believes that it is the club’s best chance of survival, even if it means a 15 point deduction in League One and having to fight a battle against relegation this season. Savage said: “The club has the best chance of survival if it goes through administration. If it falls into liquidation, it has no chance. It is the better of two evils. “If we are insolvent then something has to be done.” Savage, who is the owner at recruitment company Orion Group, also admitted that administration would result in staff at the club losing jobs, including players leaving the club. But he said they would do their best to look after them and also ensure the club has a future to look forward to. He said: ”There will be some players who will move on which we would try to mitigate at Orion and we would try to find people jobs. “We will try and look after some of the suppliers who may suffer. “We are a community club at heart, we want to do the right things. “We are in a mess due to five years of neglect and we have to face up to that. “If we can go into administration in control, which we will be, that will benefit the club. We will have the ball and we will run it.”

I agree that all opinions and potential solutions should be listened to, but the reality is that a large meeting is not the best way to do it. Meetings are time limited. If, for the sake of argument, a meeting was held outside in the main stand with around 500 people present, you would end up with less questions being asked then if it was inside as planned. There would be time wasted with people running round trying to get mics to people who want to ask questions and the usual issues of people not hearing things and asking for things to be repeated. Mechanisms are in place so that all opinions and ideas can be listened to. The club has given a contact email for money saving ideas and the Supporters Trust is collating questions. This will allow questions to be screened so that the most relevant issues are raised at the meeting and that others are addressed ASAP with the answers made public. Individuals are also free to post their questions and ideas on whatever social media platforms they subscribe to. Having said that, I believe public meetings have a real value too. Directors are seen to be standing up and directly responding to the club's supporters and being accountable. It gives an opportunity for more detailed explanation on a handful of issues and for some comeback on what they say, but with the best will in the world, there simply won't be time to properly answer all the questions people might have. I would have liked to have gone to the meeting but I have a prior commitment. I've submitted some questions to the Supporters Trust and am happy that they will find their way to the club.

Amusing too! Just the thought of somebody wasting time scrolling through 1000+ names just to see if Charles has donated, and completely failing to grasp that Charles might be one of the large number of people who donate anonymously!

I know time is tight, but as the shareholders are the owners of the club, there should probably have been a shareholders meeting followed by an open meeting with priority given to ST holders. It will be interesting to learn just how many of the tickets were obtained by people who have no interest in going.

I hope somebody from the Supporters Trust has got a ticket because they've got all the questions! I'm sure they will get in regardless, but seriously, if people who want to go aren't able to, please make sure you get your questions into the Trust ASAP to give them time to collate them before the meeting. I won't be there due to a prior commitment but I have submitted some questions to the Trust.

Well, if you can't get a ticket, you can always watch from the bridge!

There's a lot of things that appear quite contradictory. Lots of questions but very few answers. At the moment there would appear to be an obvious way to wipe out most of the debt but no solution to how we attract new money to invest in going forward. Maybe Morrison has been informed than Makwana now has proof of a significant source of funding? For all his faults and poor decision making, I do think Morrison genuinely wants the club to thrive. Morrison is not on the Board now, so shouldn't be involved in any of the negotiations involving Makwana.

Thanks for the helpful response. The key thing here is that the vast majority of the debt is owed to 3 men who, until very recently, were Directors of the club and who, we have always been told, have been fans of the club since it was founded. The club has little in the way of cash or assets, so if the club does go into administration, there is no way they are going to get their money back except in the very unlikely event of a buyer coming in who is prepared to pay off the loans. If we get liquidated then they get nothing. On the face of it, they should accept that reality and, in the interests of the club they claim to support, write off the loans and free up the club from that debt Where it gets interesting is the assets they have control of. The three of them own the shares in ICT Battery Storage Ltd with Morrison and Cameron being the Directors. That would suggest that potential proceeds from the BESS are protected from the administrator or a 3rd party buyer and could be fed back into the club at the discretion of the 3 of them at some point in the future. However, the Companies House records list the Club as a "person with significant control" with the right to remove or appoint directors, to have 75%+ voting right and to have 75%+ of shares. So if we go into administration, I wonder if the administrators would have the power to take back control and effectively include the Battery company as an asset of the club? Morrison and Munro are also the sole Directors of Inverness Caledonian Thistle Properties Ltd. This owns the leases for the ground around the stadium. There is no club control noted for this and therefore this land is presumably completely outwith the reach of the administrators. In addition, Morrison holds a charge against the Club at Companies House, which involves "Floating charge over all its property, undertaking, assets (including uncalled capital) and rights owned now or in the future." There is also a 2nd charge involving Munro as well. So, what are the implications of this? If administration looms, does this mean Morrison can say he wants his loan repaid now, and when the club says it can't pay, he enforces the charge and all the assets of the club pass to him? He and his 2 colleagues then write off the loans, pay off Gardiner and the club is debt free but Morrison, Cameron and Munro own everything between them. It seems to me that Morrison has the power both to completely asset strip the club for his own future profit or to protect the club from the administrators and the assets being sold on the cheap to a third party. If the intention of Morrison, Munro and Cameron is to protect the club from the administrators, then surely the time to write off all or most of the debt is now! If most of the debt was cleared, then the focus of the club going forward could concentrate on the steps required to balance the books and we would be a far more attractive proposition for any potential credible buyer. This is all speculation on my part, but I do think it is important that we can get an expert opinion of how the complications of Morrison's Charges and the two related companies impact on the Club's current situation and on the situation should we go into administration. Clarity would help people make a decision on whether they want to contribute to crowdfunding, and if so, how much they want to contribute.

The meeting needs to be about looking forward. In order to do that properly we need to understand the process and consequences of Administration and of struggling on to try and avoid Administration. How, for example, would the administrators deal the outstanding loan debt? What I am sure we would all agree on is that we do not want the club to be liquidated. I certainly don't like the idea of Administration either, but other clubs have been through the process and have fully recovered within a few years. I wonder therefore whether desperate efforts to avoid administration will only delay the inevitable and could do more harm than good. I worry that in order to avoid administration, the Board could look to sell the Club off to some unscrupulous buyer whose long term aim has nothing to do with football but everything to do with the potential development value of the site. Sadly, I have more confidence in the Administrators to sell the club to an appropriate buyer than I do in our own Board. If we raise the £200,000 what happens. next month? To reduce the difference between income and expenditure, the Board would need to make some of the cuts the administrators would do in any case. We would still need to find significant sums in donations every month until we could be in a position where there was a balance between income and expenditure. It would be hard and none of that touches the massive debt the club has. How long could we survive like that unless former Directors write off their loans? Would administration be worse? It would be brutal at first with redundancies coming quicker, but presumably it would allow recovery to start quicker and make the club a more attractive proposition for more appropriate buyers?