NEW INVESTMENT IN ICTFC

[Scarlet Pimple]

Which is?

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

"It's believed the consortium, who want to invest around ?250,000 in the club, have reached a deal in principle, with majority shareholder David Sutherland. The investment would see them acquire the voting rights on his 30 per cent shareholding should their offer be rubberstamped."

250K for his voting rights - that sounds like a good deal doesnt it

The consortium had a number of conditions and requests ahead of any investment and it is understood that only a couple of talking points remain outstanding.

Is anyone trying to tell me that giving TB a renewed contract was not one of those conditions. A good decison IMHO but one that was stumbling on and on and closely related to football politics and the ongoing background battle to control ICT. I fer one would prefer Terry and Mo to Robbo and Parky.

Note that some of the moderators appears twitchy when the Sutherland/Tullochs v Savage/Orion scenario is brought up. It is not in the past, it is in the here and now and could determine the future of the club. Sutherland has the reputation and the history behind him and should rightly be viewed as a saviour and a major reason for our drive to the SPL but times change and perhaps a "leader" with more contacts within football, more cash to splash, some big backers waiting in the wings, albeit possibly a score to settle influence - I would sincerely thank and laud the former but welcome the latter.

Are the Muirfield Mills going to build a Hadrians Wall around the dump or are they a Trojan Horse ?

This thread will hit ten pages in the near future.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

That kind of sum will maybe help us break even

Missed that one Richard - spot on - think about it ?

[Alex MacLeod]

"It's believed the consortium, who want to invest around ?250,000 in the

club, have reached a deal in principle, with majority shareholder David

Sutherland. The investment would see them acquire the voting rights on his 30

per cent shareholding should their offer be rubberstamped."

This is the part I cant quite understand. Every shareholder has one vote regardless of number of shares held. This consortium will put up a quarter of a million, will be given shares to the value and will have one vote. Does the single vote of DS really make a great deal of difference. If the consortium want changes they need the votes of all the other shareholders as well. Or is it a case that they are puting up cash but not taking a shareholding and instead are relieving DS of his vote?

[Scotty]

This is the part I cant quite understand. Every shareholder has one vote regardless of number of shares held. This consortium will put up a quarter of a million, will be given shares to the value and will have one vote. Does the single vote of DS really make a great deal of difference. If the consortium want changes they need the votes of all the other shareholders as well. Or is it a case that they are puting up cash but not taking a shareholding and instead are relieving DS of his vote?

erm, no. You may only vote once but it is not one shareholder one "equal" vote, if it were, why bother buying more than one share !

David Sutherland has a large number of shares and his one vote is worth roughly 30% of all votes, if he gets another 21% holding to back him (not normally an issue) then anything can be pushed through. Dont you remember some of the vociferous exchanges between him and Dougie at previous AGMs or EGMs while the rest of us - with our piffly little 250 shares each - just sat around and wondered who would blink first ?

[marks]

"It's believed the consortium, who want to invest around ?250,000 in the club, have reached a deal in principle, with majority shareholder David Sutherland. The investment would see them acquire the voting rights on his 30 per cent shareholding should their offer be rubberstamped."

250K for his voting rights - that sounds like a good deal doesnt it

The consortium had a number of conditions and requests ahead of any investment and it is understood that only a couple of talking points remain outstanding.

Is anyone trying to tell me that giving TB a renewed contract was not one of those conditions. A good decison IMHO but one that was stumbling on and on and closely related to football politics and the ongoing background battle to control ICT. I fer one would prefer Terry and Mo to Robbo and Parky.

Note that some of the moderators appears twitchy when the Sutherland/Tullochs v Savage/Orion scenario is brought up. It is not in the past, it is in the here and now and could determine the future of the club. Sutherland has the reputation and the history behind him and should rightly be viewed as a saviour and a major reason for our drive to the SPL but times change and perhaps a "leader" with more contacts within football, more cash to splash, some big backers waiting in the wings, albeit possibly a score to settle influence - I would sincerely thank and laud the former but welcome the latter.

Are the Muirfield Mills going to build a Hadrians Wall around the dump or are they a Trojan Horse ?

This thread will hit ten pages in the near future.

5:20 See you there.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE - Savage or Sutherland

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

"It's believed the consortium, who want to invest around ?250,000 in the

club, have reached a deal in principle, with majority shareholder David

Sutherland. The investment would see them acquire the voting rights on his 30

per cent shareholding should their offer be rubberstamped."

This is the part I cant quite understand. Every shareholder has one vote regardless of number of shares held. This consortium will put up a quarter of a million, will be given shares to the value and will have one vote. Does the single vote of DS really make a great deal of difference. If the consortium want changes they need the votes of all the other shareholders as well. Or is it a case that they are puting up cash but not taking a shareholding and instead are relieving DS of his vote?

May I suggest that you look at how the present voting and how the potential percentages (or should we call them factions) work out.