DoofersDad

It is not remotely the same. The fact that Morrison still has a charge against the club is part of the uncertainty that is stopping people putting money into the club at the moment. I don't want my money going out of my pocket and then going straight into his pocket when the club goes bust.

If you are going to alter the text of someone you are quoting, please make it absolute clear that you are doing so. What you have quoted me as saying is absolutely not what I said.

That would still be subject to confidentiality. The thing is that it is open to both sides of the contract to make the length of the notice period publicly available. The fact that it hasn't been made known will be because one or both sides of the agreement wish it to remain confidential. Given that money will flow into the club when Gardiner is out of the door, it is clearly in the interests of the club that the CEO's leaving date is made public and that it is as soon as possible. Those at the club responsible for not releasing this information are not acting in the interests of the club.

There are 2 problems with possession based football. The first is that it is difficult to execute effectively and the second is that it is generally boring. When you are faced with 11 opponents between you and the goal, it is easy to play the ball from side to side and backwards, but not forwards. You need to have team mates who are in space; you need to play the ball firmly and accurately to them; they will probably be in less space than you were and are likely to be closed down, so they need to have an awareness of what other teammates are available to allow the ball to be moved on quickly. To be effective the players need to have excellent awareness of the movement around them and to be able to consistently play the ball accurately with the right weight of pass. Those attributes are certainly worth coaching because they are of value in any style of play, but they are essential if the plan is to pass the ball through the opposition. You only have to watch England in the Euros to realise how difficult it is. They have some of the top players in the world but yet they are struggling with it. The players themselves are capable enough, but being asked to play in a slightly different system and with different teammates, they are simply not demonstrating the form that they show at club level. A big advantage of possession football is that your opponents see less of the ball and therefore will find it harder to score. So if you can use it to create opportunities yourself, it becomes a winning formula. It becomes less of a winning formula at lower level because the players are not so skilled meaning you lose the ball more often and don't create as many chances yourselves. What England are also demonstrating is that unless you are executing the system well, it is incredibly boring to watch. In terms of entertainment value, it was far more enjoyable watching Turkey playing. They probably produced more excitement in each of their 5 games than England have in all of theirs combined. ICT fans will no doubt have a range of opinions on what balance between success and entertainment they would like to see from the team, but my point is that our level, a possession style of football is not only boring to watch, it is also less likely to win us matches. Dunc out, Fraz in!

It is very odd indeed. I was completely unaware that he had resigned. According to Companies House he resigned on 5th March 2022 so that is a delay of over 27 months! Yet it will surprise nobody on here that Cameron is still listed on the club's own website as being on the Board!

Yes, I think that was the case. Didn't Morrison state that if the appeal is won and a buyer is found to develop and operate the site, the club would invoice the battery company for that sum? It would be up to 3 principal shareholders whether they wished to honour that as I doubt there is a legally binding contract. Also, they may wish to subtract any money that they voluntarily put into the club at the time of the transfer of ownership. The club could therefore still get a significant windfall from this, but it should not be making plans based on the assumption that they will.

I'm not convinced. If what you have been told is true, then why the delay? The figures pertaining to the the year to May 23 will have been known for certain months ago. The uncertainty lies in how the club proposed to address the issues the figures indicate so that the business can continue as a going concern. Earlier in the year the club could easily have told the auditors that over £3M was likely from the BESS and a further £1M from the Park and Ride. Clearly it was eminently plausible that both of those schemes would generate funds, so why couldn't the auditors not sign the accounts of then? Yngwie's argument sounds much more likely to me. The auditors might well have thought it likely that both projects would generate money, but they will also have been aware that they might not. Without a more definite assurance and a lack of any information about a more certain stream of funding, they could not sign the accounts off on a going concern basis. The fact that they have now signed suggests to me that they are now assured that significant funding is coming in from another source (and presumably that operating costs are being significantly reduced).

Thanks. Good points. If that is an accrual related to the cup money, then it is money which has already been spent on getting rid of one management team and replacing it with a more expensive and worse one. Accounts for 2023/4 are going to look even worse, although hopefully we will be in a better financial position by the time we see them. Under what name was the appeal lodged? If successful we have to hope that Morrison and Munro can find another company to build and operate the plant. This could still bring in some significant money for the club, but relying on such speculative ventures is no basis on which to fund a football club.

Whatever his perception of the fans may be, that should simply not be a consideration in this. As Chairman, he must take the responsibility for taking the club to the brink of administration. If he has any genuine wishes for what is best for the club and if he has a shred of decency in him, he will remove the charges against the club and write off all or most of the loan. From the concert company fiasco through to the current crisis, his behaviour recently has been such that I have lost any respect I once had for the man. Rather than fronting pie in the sky ideas for making money for the club, he now has an opportunity to do something which is 100% guaranteed to be a big help to the club. If he does that simple but generous thing he will earn back a lot of respect from a lot of people.

The fact that the accounts have finally been published is good news. Hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong, but my assumption is that the delay in submitting the accounts will have been because the auditors needed to be be persuaded that there were legitimate reasons for the directors to prepare the accounts on a going concern basis. It would appear that the accountants are satisfied that new investment is probably coming into the club sufficient to address the financial shortfalls. As always, there is little detail in the accounts, but what is there, is not good. A net loss of £588K is reported. Following relegation, our income can be expected to be considerably less in the coming year and the operational costs will need to be cut by more than the reduction of income if the loss is to be reduced. An operating loss is not necessarily a problem as long as there is a source of money to cover the loss. This is where things start getting worrying and where questions need to be asked. Under the heading of "current assets", there is a figure of over £1M against "Debtors". In the previous year, this was just £172K. So why the big increase? Who owed us the cash and has it subsequently been paid? I wonder if it is primarily the money we were expecting for the park and ride scheme associated with the hydro scheme project and which won't now be received? If so, that will make our net assets position around £1M worse than the 2023 accounts show. The accounts then show we owe over £3M to creditors. Does this mainly relate to loans made to the club by Morrison and Munro? If so, future investors will want to know how much if any, these 2 expect to be returned. The charges are still in place at Companies House. From my very amateur reading of the accounts, it looks as though there could be somewhere between £3 -4M required from new investors simply to get us to the point where we can start investing in the football side of things. That is a big ask of any "investor". Hopefully Morrison and Munro will write off the loans. It could be argued that if they can afford to provide the cash as a loan, they can afford to give it. Some might say that if they claim to have the best interests of the club at heart, they should certainly write the loans off as they must take much of the blame for the situation the club now finds itself in. And just an observation that the accounts were signed off by Scott Young on behalf of the club. Scott wasn't on the Board for any of the period to which the accounts pertain. I wonder why one of the others who were on the Board during 2022/3 and who are responsible for getting the club into its current position, has not put their name to them? So, whilst there is still serious cause for concern, the fact that the accounts have been signed off on a going concern basis is definitely good news. Let's hope for more in the coming few days.

In the club statement of Friday 14th June, they stated the new kits would be revealed over that weekend. We're still waiting for the away kits. Did Gardiner forget to order them?

I imagine the 2 week extension of the early bird offer is because they have just realised they haven't agreed a price for when the scheme ends.

Might we actually get a transfer fee for once!

When the club finally get round to having an AGM or if there is an EGM at some stage, shareholders can nominate the Trust as their proxy if they are unable or don't wish to attend in person. I will hang on to my shareholding because whilst I would be perfectly happy to have the current leadership of the Trust vote on my behalf, that might not always be the case. The number of members the Trust has is important regardless of the fact that increased numbers do not increase its shareholding. Because it is a democratic body, the way the Trust might vote in a meeting can be assumed to be representative of its members. If the membership numbers are a good percentage of the number of season ticket holders, other shareholders may well be persuaded to vote with the Trust because they will know they are voting with the majority fan view. Of course, it will be difficult to judge how the Trust's membership compares with the number of Season Ticket holders if the club refuse to say how many ST holders there are!

It might go on to tomorrow, but after that, there is currently no information on what price season tickets will be. It is utterly bizarre as it is just another thing which stops people from putting money into the club. I can't help thinking that the club are resigned to administration but want to blame it on the fans for not supporting the club at its time of greatest need.

I agree with all of that apart from the last sentence. I am certainly not anything like "done with the whole thing". I fully intend watching ICT for many years to come after the current custodians of the club are out of the door. I'm not going to sit back and allow the current management to kill off my football club and deny me the pleasure of supporting my team in the future. The key thing is to ensure that somehow, the club survives. One option is for one, or a very small number of "investors" to put a significant amount of money into the club. From the club's statement of June 14th it appeared this option might be on the cards, but the wall of silence since suggests this may not be the case. If no big money is going to come in, then the second option is for the club to be financed by a large number of small sources. That means investment from fans and support from local businesses and the wider community. That would involve a radical change in the business model preceded by a difficult transition period where the club opened up about the club's finances. The current position is clearly unsustainable. If nobody is coming in with big money to stabilise the club, the current management need to swallow a bit of humble pie and start working constructively with smaller shareholders, the Supporters Trust and other community interests to find a way to stave off administration in the short term and to develop a more sustainable model for the long term. Something needs to happen very, very soon.

The prices on the club's website are exactly the same as were quoted in the email they sent out to existing ST holders. These prices are early bird prices both for existing ST holders and new ST holders with existing ST holders getting an additional loyalty bonus. There is nothing to say what the prices will be after 2nd July either for ST holders or for individual tickets. It really is unnecessarily unhelpful.

So that's another week gone with no further update about what is happening at the club. And it is 2 weeks since we were told about "hugely positive discussions with a number of potential investors". I thought it had been mentioned somewhere that the deadline for getting audited accounts to Companies House was 30th June, but seeing as the 30th is on Sunday, the effective deadline would have been today. Can anyone clarify?

As does arranging a friendly away to Raith.

I agree that if Dundee Utd are paying his wages it could be a bit of good business, but that in no way mitigates against the appalling way locally based keepers have been treated. Of course, none of the background here is Jack's fault and if he is to be our first choice keeper, then we must give him our full support. I rather fear he will be a busy lad and will need all the support he can get.

Well said, Big Cherly. I have no respect for Ferguson. During this very difficult time for the club he had a particular duty of care to keep his squad of players as informed as he could. To hear so many players say they have heard nothing from anybody at the club is truly shameful and it is Ferguson, as team manager, who had the prime responsibility for this. It is unforgivable. Unfortunately we are stuck with him for the time being. I hope that when his contract is up it is not renewed, regardless of how successful he may be in turning things around. And I hope that he is successful, both for the the players' sakes and for the club's. It is very much in Ferguson's own interest to reflect on his behaviour and change his ways. If he can do that and show a bit more success on the pitch, he may still have a future in football management. Just, not here.

Nah. There'd be no communication with the back line and too many own goals.

Austin Samuels was not on the list Robert posted earlier. He confirmed on X yesterday that he has left the club. Reading between the lines, it sounds as though he is not happy with the club, however, he does say "but the support I got from the fans was always amazing". I for one am certainly very sorry to see him leave the club and wish him all the best for the future.

It will certainly need to change with no goalkeeper to pass back to.

The Trust has been working hard for a number of years to establish a meaningful and constructive relationship. Such a relationship would clearly be in the best interests of the club and the community it serves. Unfortunately the club has only engaged sporadically, yet the Trust has continued to offer support and help to the club. Working together for the mutual benefit of the club and the supporters is, after all, the purpose of the Trust. As a former Trust Board member and Chair, I know how hard the Trust Board has always worked to keep lines of communication open despite all the knock backs from the club over the years. It therefore saddens me to read the latest statement from the Trust. It is clear that despite the Trust's very significant efforts in these past few weeks, the point has been reached where the Trust feels it is obliged to take radical action to shock the club's management out of its self-destructive path. This will have been a very difficult decision for the current Trust Board to have taken and I applaud them for doing so. The Trust's previous statement was very different in that it was encouraging fans to buy their season tickets and club merchandise. They will have been well aware that this was at odds to the views expressed by over 200 fans at the Caley Club a few days earlier. They felt able to give that encouragement by accepting, in good faith, assurances provided by the club which it now transpires were worthless. It is self-evident that assurances about communications have not been honoured, because there has been no communication. We don't know whether there was any truth in the club's statement about discussions with potential investors, but what we do know is that if there had been such discussions, they haven't delivered what one would expect "hugely promising discussions" to deliver. No doubt the Trust will continue to seek dialogue both with those currently in charge and with potential investors. As fans, we need to support the Trust in their continuing efforts to secure a sustainable future for the club. Potential investors need to know that the support for the club is strong but that there is no support for those currently running (ruining) the club.