Yngwie

Could the arrangement not be that Kelty FC would block book the pitch from Fife Council then charge us for using it? Another interesting part to come out of this is that the contract between us and Kelty is not finalised. I suspect that before the announcement last week, the clubs would have entered into a ‘ Heads of Terms’ that would state the key terms (eg what we are hiring, for how long and the agreed price) which would all then be stated as being subject to a full contract that would contain further details and which lawyers would certainly get involved in.

Actually the accounts due this week ought to look better than usual in so far as they cover the season in which we made possibly £1m from the cup run, and bit of profit from the concerts too. The ones for the season just ended, however, will be an absolute car crash, with lower revenue from all sources. Those are the accounts we’d really like to see, but will no doubt have to wait a long time for them.

Trouble is you still need a manager and still need someone to run the club, so it would be a case of saving a good proportion of those costs rather than all of it. And you probably need to find something like £150k to pay them off? I think that’d use up the vast majority of our season ticket revenue.

Another of the Angus clubs, cannae mind which, think it might be Brechin rather than Forfar, trains in Perth rather than Dundee - again wanting to draw upon the central belt for players.

Didn’t know that, I always assumed they would train in Dundee ie the nearest city. It kinda sounds like have a bit of a Kelty style model then as I don’t imagine many of their players live in Arbroath. They must be doing something right with the community aspect, I’ve always had the impression that their fans have a connection with the players.

I’m merely suggesting that the club probably recruited a candidate from further afield because he had something to offer that local applicants didn’t? Can’t think why else they would choose to incur additional cost if it didn’t bring some sort of benefit. On a similar subject, I presume our Head of Medical must have been relocated up here too - think he was at a couple football clubs down south previously IIRC.

With experience of working on a squad of full time professional sportsmen? I would imagine a pro football club would ideally want someone who has done that before, but maybe I’m completely wrong.

Possibly, but I guess any football really wants a physio who has experience of working on a team of full time sportsmen. Perhaps not many of those in the Highlands.

On the dark A9 highway, cool wind in my hair Warm smell of burnt pies rising up through the air Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim, I had to stop for the night There Scot stood in the doorway, with some snake oil to sell And I was thinkin' to myself, "This could be heaven or this could be hell" Then he gave me a handshake and he showed me the way There were voices from the North Stand I thought I heard them say Welcome to the Hotel Caledonian Such an empty place What a big disgrace Plenty of seats at the Hotel Caledonian Any time of year There’s no players here

Yes it would be good to get an update what is happening with the appeal. But if part of the problem with the initial application was that it was rushed and incomplete, it would make perfect sense for the club and its legal representatives to spend as much time as it takes to get it right and make the best possible case.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head that it’s a business decision - and normal business logic often doesn’t work well when applied in football.

And based on the season we’ve just had, guests would pay extra to not get a view of the pitch!

Sounds like we should be building a hotel at the stadium!

Great stuff as usual and good discussion on this issue. Some of it mentioned aspects that haven’t been covered here and which I found quite eye opening 1. the suggestion/revelation that even if we got the battery farm money, this move was still planned? I guess it is unconfirmed speculation, but it was certainly implied that it came from the inside. I am sympathetic to the fact that financial necessity often leads to unpalatable decisions but this suggests it is just a strategic preference. 2. a figure of £300,000 was mentioned - did I hear correctly that this is what we currently spend on accommodation? Surely not?! I was driving at the time so maybe misheard couldn’t rewind it to check. If it’s remotely true, that’s a huge part of our budget being spent not on player wages and you can understand why we’d at least explore how to reduce it.

If the application was made by ICTFC and appealed by ICTFC then it is all as valid as it ever was. I presume there are then commercial agreements, leases etc, between the relevant companies, which do not have to be published anywhere.

More bad news should not come as a surprise to anyone, let’s be real. We were in a pretty dire financial predicament, seemingly trying to stave off administration, and then we got relegated which has made it an awful lot worse.

It was/is a separate company, that was set up to benefit ICT with the funds if it had succeeded. The battery farm company now seems to be even further removed from the club after issuing fresh shares directly to a number of the club’s directors.

Normally when the patient is suffering this much, there is only one outcome!

But wouldn’t fans then say we are a Dingwall side?

The cost of running it has previously been cited as an issue. Others might recall better but I’m pretty sure that when the club were looking for sponsors/funding for the youth set up they said it was costing about £400,000 a year to run?

Has there been anything said yet about the youth set up? From the moment we got relegated I have been assuming that it would be getting axed. There were various comments from the club during our Championship years that they were struggling to find the funds to sustain it. As a League 1 club now, it would be a very pleasant surprise if we were able to keep it going.

Yes it does suggest they are out of touch! They probably recall that when the club decided to play its home games in Aberdeen for a season, fans suffered huge inconvenience and cost but accepted it, while in contrast, this latest move causes absolutely no inconvenience or cost for fans. One of the key differences though is that the Aberdeen thing was a temporary measure and fans could see the benefit for the greater good of the club.

Agreed - I suspect they perhaps didn’t realise how strong the backlash would be and are taking cover with hard hats on at the moment. At some point soon they need to come out and elaborate on why they believe this plan is the best option. As it stands, posters on this site have explained parts of it better than the club statement did.

I think the 3 main sources of funds in recent years have been season tickets, prize money and Ross Morrison who in some seasons may well have been the largest of those. Prize money in League 1 is obviously much less than in the Championship, cup runs are unlikely too, and our benefactor seems to be turning off the tap and making the club live within its means - so I suspect that in the budget for next season, season tickets will be a much larger proportion of revenue than before. Interesting about the fan owned clubs being the only ones not loss making. Is that perhaps simply because they have no choice but to live within their means, as there is not a wealthy shareholder to bail them out if expenditure exceeds income for any reason? Totally agreed with your final para by the way.

Agree that when the Board agreed to this, however long ago that was, any member who was strongly opposed should have stuck to their principles and resigned at the time. We have to assume/hope that the decision wasn’t just taken on a whim one day, and instead a well researched and costed proposal was put to the Board that gave more details of the challenges for recruitment at varying salary levels and how this idea would result in a better squad and/or cost savings, whilst also considering impacts on youth teams, Highland based players/coaches, and how the club could mitigate the further loss of community relations. Surely they did something one that? The Board could then compare the plan with the status quo, and choose the best (or least bad) option. No doubt Gardiner was behind the proposal, but it was approved by a Board who are all ICT fans and who are presumably better informed on the issues, financial budgets etc than we are, and they must have concluded that the pros outweigh the cons?