Merged: I BELIEVE.

[CaleyD]

* ICT was very lucky not to go under in the 1999-2000 period. It was only the "Trust" deal which prevented financial oblivion. NB - that is a fact and not an invitation to reopen any debate on the nature of the "Trust".

This is not a fact at all Charles, very far from it and despite the smiley (well placed I must say as you can now claim I took the bait) it is not a matter that should be so easily glossed over.

You, and others, should really check your facts before pedalling these events as being some kind of club saving move on the part of David Sutherland as they are ultimately proving to be the events which are dragging this club down a very dark road.

You're no stranger to journalism....and investigative journalism at that. I suggest you stop listening to the tosh that's dished out by the self preservationists in the Heathmount and go do some proper investigation into the matter yourself.

Here's a couple of starters for you......

How much was it costing the club to service the debt that existed and how much have we been paying in rent since?

Who actually took ownership of the Stadium Buildings and the leasehold? It wasn't any charitable trust.

What % of shares do ICT hold in the company that owns the new stands?....you know, the ones we paid about ?250,000 toward!!!

Furthermore, the reasons we were given for selling the stadium on the cheap was that the debt was preventing people from making further investment in the club. Nearly 10 years on and there's no sign of these investors that were waiting in the wings....and those who have been prepared to invest something have been shunned and driven out the door.

Any money invested in this club, and it's not been as much as some people think, by David Sutherland he has had back many times over and he continues to benefit from what's gone on whilst the wounds inflicted in the past 10 years continue to fester and weaken us.

Some might claim "That's Business"...and to a certain extent I might agree, but please, don't try and paint the man as some kind of White Knight who has done any of this for any reason other than his own self interest. No "White Knight" would sit back and watch the club perish as they prepare to go laughing all the way to the bank.

The long and short of it Charles, is that you are a person of general good standing among ICT fans and it is totally irresponsible of you to be pedalling such ill informed stories....this is not the first time we've butted heads on this matter, so please don't try playing the ignorance card. Even if you don't believe everything I am telling you, you know things aren't as you portray them and you know it is a subject worthy of proper investigation.

[Yngwie]

Strange as it may seem, I think you are both right.

[Harry Chibber]

so much for this being a positive thread

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

I believe that CaleyD has hit the nail on the head .

[Johnboy]

I think he probably has....

As he rightly suggests, it is a subject worthy of a proper investigation.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Like Scotty, I'll always believe in ICT no matter what bumbling halfwits are involved in it.

However I think some of the younger posters need a reality check. Just because we've spent a third of our history in the SPL doesn't mean that is our natural home.

If you've been with the club since 94 you will appreciate what hard work it was, especially escaping from SFL1 in 2004. Throughout the first 10 or 12 years of its life, ICT was a special club to be part of. ICT were capable of miracles. Our wee neighbours across the bridge threw McGregor's millions at the problem but they couldn't crack ICT because ICT had some of the best people at the right time. Pele was a special manager and he put together an amazing squad, a few of whom are still here. Robbo was able to make the same players nearly impossible to beat and turned us into a team that could grind out a 1-0.

About 3 years ago it all started to go off the boil. Before that, it would have been ICT coming from 2 down to beat Dundee and not the other way round.

If Dundee lift the title this year then Partick will fancy themselves at the head of the queue next time. Falkirk or whoever comes down will want to bounce back up. Dunfermline have just given McIntyre a new contract because he's going in the right direction.

Any talk of ICT being second this year is nonsense. Let's get through the season, let Terry and June wander off to pastures new, and get somebody who actually cares about the club. Ditch all the career pros who had to look up Inverness on a map and get back to basics. It'll probably take five years if we make the right decisions first time.

Mantis, you are a man after my own heart. I agree with almost every word and I believe we will be in the SFL for a good long time now, and part of the problem is that we have lost whatever it was that made us a special club and it will take us a long time to get that back, if indeed we ever do.

Dundee 0 Airdrie 1 BELIEVE

Wilson, what are you drinking, because I would LOVE some right now.

I believe all right!

I believe that we need rid of David Sutherland before it's all too late.

I believe that once this is achieved, and let's face it, that'll be an achievement, we need rid of all of the current board. Our boardroom should be no place for "yes men" and our entire board are guilty of exactly that.

Only once we have achieved all of this, will we see the changes necessary in the dugout and on the pitch that will make us successfull again.

Is it any wonder that attendances are dwindelling at an alarming rate?

Yup. David Sutherland may have kept our club afloat, but his control over us is increasingly becoming a stranglehold rather than a support. The board have also shown a singular lack of ambition and have allowed our club to go backwards, which has been happening basically since Ken Mackie left. This is what I find particularly galling.

[Renegade]

I seem to recollect Alan Savage saying that his role as Chairman was being"diluted" by Sutherland which eventually led to him packing it in. Says it all really. This guys only in this club for his own gain.

[Kind of Blue]

* ICT was very lucky not to go under in the 1999-2000 period. It was only the "Trust" deal which prevented financial oblivion. NB - that is a fact and not an invitation to reopen any debate on the nature of the "Trust".

How much was it costing the club to service the debt that existed and how much have we been paying in rent since?

The interest on the debt is serviced soley by the Trust - the club do not contribute to this apart from paying a rent whch is way below commercial rates and is a very good deal.

The David Sutherland critics must explain how the club would have survived without David Sutherland's intervention because there is no question that the Bank would have called in the debt in 2000. At this stage Dougie MaGill and Coffin John were finished investing in the club and nobody else was coming forward.

[CaleyD]

The Charitable Trust DO NOT own the stadium or the leasehold for the land, these are held by companies wholly owned by David Sutherland.....confirmed by searches done at the Land Registry. These documents also detail the amount of rent being paid...and I can assure you it is far from being way below what I would consider commercial rates.

The Charitable Trust was set up, but it has never traded a single penny and is, according to companies house, a dormant company.

Explain why ICTFC have no shareholding in the company that owns the new stands when they invested in the region of ?250,000 in the project?

Explain why minutes of Highland Council Meetings (these are public records) detail that the loan they gave was in the name of Inverness Caledonian Thistle Properties Ltd and not the Charitable Trust...which you claim owns the the Stadium?

Or you could do as others do and simply ignore these points each time they are raised, wait for the things to settle a little and then start peddling the company line somewhere further down the line.

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

Come on Kind of Blue we're waiting for a response to CaleyD's questions .

[Wilsononourwing]

so much for this being a positive thread :tonguecheek:

I believe for every drop of rain that falls

A flower grows

I believe that somewhere in the darkest night

A candle glows

I believe for everyone who goes astray, someone will come

To show the way

I believe, I believe

I believe above a storm the smallest prayer

Can still be heard

I believe that someone in the great somewhere

Hears every word

.................................and that someone will take us back up to where I THINK we belong.

[stevico1]

Come on Kind of Blue we're waiting for a response to CaleyD's questions .

I also would like to hear Charles's response to what Caley D stated.

Both Kind of Blue and Charles were making statements that the readers off this post would have taken to be fact, then Caley D posted what I believe to be the real story.

Are they prepared to state that what Caley D says is incorrect, are they prepared to put their hands up and say they got it wrong or will they take they 3rd option and say nothing.

[DALNEIGHCALEY]

I think their silence says it all .

[TheKnowledge]

I think their silence says it all .

Is there a chance that neither of them are on here at the moment?

[Charles Bannerman]

I also would like to hear Charles's response to what Caley D stated.

OK... I've just come back to this thread after several days and I see that it has had further activity.

Initially, please note that in my original post I deliberately placed the term "Trust" in inverted commas to acknowledge the fact that there are varying viewpoints on the nature of this arrangement. However I would have to emphasise that, in almost a decade now since the "arrangement" was made, I have never really been aware of its precise nature being an issue among ICT fans. For instance it's not exactly the kind of thing that groups of scandalised people sit around discussing over their post match dram in the Social Club week in week out, nor is it the talk of the terraces Saturday after Saturday. Yes, a certain view of the arrangement does exist, but apart from one or two people on here it really seems to be a viewpoint which, despite having being stated very forcefully by those who subscribe to it and having had a decade to gain currency, has spectacularly failed to do so.

I think the take of most fans (and this is my take as well) would tend to be:-

* In 1999-2000 Caley Thistle's financial situation had become dire in the extreme. That threat to the future of ICT was removed by a transaction involving the Stadium.

* In 2004-05 the extreme need to return from playing SPL football in Aberdeen to a 6000+ seat capacity stadium in Inverness was met and financed in a very short timescale.

And it would appear that, in the view of the vast majority, these vital ends are what matter while very few people seem to feel "disadvantaged" or "cheated" or "done" or whatever by the means of achieving them.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Charles Bannerman

[RiG]

I've got to say that some of the financial events over the years at ICT always left me a bit confused - quite easily done! But after reading Caley D and Charles Bannermans posts I am even more confused!

[TheKnowledge]

I've got to say that some of the financial events over the years at ICT always left me a bit confused - quite easily done! But after reading Caley D and Charles Bannermans posts I am even more confused!

Yeah. Like what Charles says, most of us just see the end result like, ICT were in finacial trouble a while back, and then we were not (I know we are again now though!). I didn't really understand how the 'rescue' deal all came about. I can just remember my dad talking about having to buy shares in the club to save it, or something like that.

[Caley Stan]

I also would like to hear Charles's response to what Caley D stated.

OK... I've just come back to this thread after several days and I see that it has had further activity.

Initially, please note that in my original post I deliberately placed the term "Trust" in inverted commas to acknowledge the fact that there are varying viewpoints on the nature of this arrangement. However I would have to emphasise that, in almost a decade now since the "arrangement" was made, I have never really been aware of its precise nature being an issue among ICT fans. For instance it's not exactly the kind of thing that groups of scandalised people sit around discussing over their post match dram in the Social Club week in week out, nor is it the talk of the terraces Saturday after Saturday. Yes, a certain view of the arrangement does exist, but apart from one or two people on here it really seems to be a viewpoint which, despite having being stated very forcefully by those who subscribe to it and having had a decade to gain currency, has spectacularly failed to do so.

I think the take of most fans (and this is my take as well) would tend to be:-

* In 1999-2000 Caley Thistle's financial situation had become dire in the extreme. That threat to the future of ICT was removed by a transaction involving the Stadium.

* In 2004-05 the extreme need to return from playing SPL football in Aberdeen to a 6000+ seat capacity stadium in Inverness was met and financed in a very short timescale.

And it would appear that, in the view of the vast majority, these vital ends are what matter while very few people seem to feel "disadvantaged" or "cheated" or "done" or whatever by the means of achieving them.

What a disappointing response to the very important points CaleyD has raised. Your conclusion seems to be that because Sutherland has helped us out a couple of times, we shouldn't really be asking any questions about how and why he did it.

While I don't have much knowledge of the financial history of the club, it seems from what i'm reading on here that CaleyD has established that the deal which wiped ICT's debt in 2000 did not involve transferring the ownership of the stadium to a "charitable trust", as we were told, but actually involved David Sutherland buying the stadium and charging the club rent on it. If this is a fact, then a lot of significant questions arise from it - like these:

How much was it costing the club to service the debt that existed and how much have we been paying in rent since?

What % of shares do ICT hold in the company that owns the new stands?....you know, the ones we paid about ?250,000 toward!!!

Furthermore, the reasons we were given for selling the stadium on the cheap was that the debt was preventing people from making further investment in the club. Nearly 10 years on and there's no sign of these investors that were waiting in the wings....and those who have been prepared to invest something have been shunned and driven out the door.

If this was to be reported in the media, and these questions were to be put to our esteemed majority shareholder, then i think it is highly likely that this subject would soon become a major point of post-match discussion in the Social Club.

[CaleyD]

I also would like to hear Charles's response to what Caley D stated.

OK... I've just come back to this thread after several days and I see that it has had further activity.

Initially, please note that in my original post I deliberately placed the term "Trust" in inverted commas to acknowledge the fact that there are varying viewpoints on the nature of this arrangement. However I would have to emphasise that, in almost a decade now since the "arrangement" was made, I have never really been aware of its precise nature being an issue among ICT fans. For instance it's not exactly the kind of thing that groups of scandalised people sit around discussing over their post match dram in the Social Club week in week out, nor is it the talk of the terraces Saturday after Saturday. Yes, a certain view of the arrangement does exist, but apart from one or two people on here it really seems to be a viewpoint which, despite having being stated very forcefully by those who subscribe to it and having had a decade to gain currency, has spectacularly failed to do so.

I think the take of most fans (and this is my take as well) would tend to be:-

* In 1999-2000 Caley Thistle's financial situation had become dire in the extreme. That threat to the future of ICT was removed by a transaction involving the Stadium.

* In 2004-05 the extreme need to return from playing SPL football in Aberdeen to a 6000+ seat capacity stadium in Inverness was met and financed in a very short timescale.

And it would appear that, in the view of the vast majority, these vital ends are what matter while very few people seem to feel "disadvantaged" or "cheated" or "done" or whatever by the means of achieving them.

I always like it when people start throwing around statements like "most fans" and "in the view of the vast majority" when they have absolutely no evidence to quantify the claims.

In 99-00 we were told by David Sutherland that the club was facing a financial crisis because our level of debt had become unsustainable....a view not shared by everyone at the time. His solution was to magic the debt away, and the stadium along with it, into a Charitable Trust. Newspaper articles, statements from Club Officials/Shareholders back this up, as does information still available for viewing on the Official Website. Again, the solution was not something everyone believed was right and I recall mass walk outs by Board Members and much stamping of feet when Dougie McGillvray dared challenge it.

At that time we were told the nature of this Charitable Trust was such that once it had cleared it's feet of the debt it would then serve to assist/fund/help sport in Inverness. Their was even talk of David Sutherland/Tulloch transferring their shareholding in ICT to the Trust.

I remember questions at the time surrounding how the Charitable Trust could pay the debt without any source of income and we were told that due to the tax breaks available to such an organisation they could effectively charge us a manageable rent which would cost us less than it had been to service the debt. and the Charitable Trust could make interest payments and clear some of the capital owed......we were, in effect, going to be working the system, but at the end of it we would have this Charitable "Sports" Trust which would serve the wider sporting needs of the area.

We were also told that by removing the debt then we would be able to encourage new investment. At the time I certainly had the impression that their were people waiting in the wings to invest....this never ever transpired

It is my belief that it was the ...having a Trust serving wider sporting needs and giving something back... part which won people over and stopped too many questions being asked at the time.

As things are now, the Stadium is not owned by a Charitable Trust...it's a dormant company doing NOTHING. In effect their is nothing that is ever going to "give back"....whats more, ICTFC sunk another ?250,000 into this black hole when we built the new stands and have NOTHING to show for it in terms of assets.

My issue is not that we (ICTFC) no longer own the Stadium....it's the fact that it is not in the hands of the company it should be in or doing what it should be doing. It is in the hands of a private individual who can basically do as he likes with it whilst charging us a sizeable rent. We might have got rid of the debt, but we're still paying for it. We would have been as well keeping the debt & the Stadium....it might have taken us longer than desired to clear our feet, but we would still have had something to show for it at the end of the day....or if it had gone to the Charitable Trust, at least Inverness would have been benefiting from the transaction.

If you take our rent over 10 years and add in the ?250k we paid towards the New Stands and apply that to the debt we had back then....we'd have made a fairly sizeable hole in what was owed and we'd have an asset worth well in excess of that debt and not likely to have had any trouble with the bank......in fact, I would wager that with the slightly better years (financially) we had in the SPL then we may well have actually been able to clear our feet, either directly or by being able to encourage investment in a company that actually had some assets to invest in.

[TheKnowledge]

.in fact, I would wager that with the slightly better years (financially) we had in the SPL then we may well have actually been able to clear our feet, either directly or by being able to encourage investment in a company that actually had some assets to invest in.

Would we have been able to get to the SPL without clearing our debts when we did?

Edited January 9, 2010 by TheKnowledge

[CaleyD]

Doesn't make any difference to what's being discussed.....I was just saying that "IF" things had panned out as they did and we still owned the debt then there's a good chance we could have cleared our feet totally as opposed to partially.

The cost of the debt was replaced by the cost of the rent....so in terms of what money we would have had to spend on the squad, it really made no difference to our achievements on the playing side, IMO.

[PullMyFinger]

Doesn't make any difference to what's being discussed.....I was just saying that "IF" things had panned out as they did and we still owned the debt then there's a good chance we could have cleared our feet totally as opposed to partially.

The cost of the debt was replaced by the cost of the rent....so in terms of what money we would have had to spend on the squad, it really made no difference to our achievements on the playing side, IMO.

Do you have evidence that this was the case?

[Council Juice]

Ah someone mentioning Ken Mackie. Those were the days. Everything was so feel good. We got obstacles thrown at us and yet we took it in our stride.

Would anyone take Ken Mackie back as chairman?

[CaleyD]

Do you have evidence that this was the case?

I have the Land Registry entries which show how much is/was being paid in rent and my Financial Services background allows me to come up with a fair calculation on what the cost of the debt would have been.....so yeah, I'm confident that I have sufficient to back up my claim.

[PullMyFinger]

Do you have evidence that this was the case?

I have the Land Registry entries which show how much is/was being paid in rent and my Financial Services background allows me to come up with a fair calculation on what the cost of the debt would have been.....so yeah, I'm confident that I have sufficient to back up my claim.

So we've been asset stripped by our major shareholder then?