Caley Thistle chief Fraser to step down

[Libero]

CALEY Thistle chairman George Fraser has announced his decision to step down from the top post ? with his predecessor Alan Savage tipped to replace him.

Full story here

[12th Man]

CALEY Thistle chairman George Fraser has announced his decision to step down from the top post ? with his predecessor Alan Savage tipped to replace him.

Full story here

I would imagine he will have his hands full with Tullochs starting up again anyway.

[Council Juice]

Is it just me or did last time we got a cash injection Alan Savage came in as chairman? He should keep stepping down and coming back in if thats the case.

Also, any more classy Romanians coming in, perhaps this time a little less on the mercenary side of things? Chivu maybe?

[Yngwie]

The other point of note is that we made of loss of ?190,000 for 2010/11 despite the profit on selling the social club property. Does anyone have a copy of the accounts to give a bit more understanding of our underlying performance?

It sounds like the recent cash injection is something that will be needed annually just to cover our losses.

[Council Juice]

That could be the fall out of our year of relegation with last seasons TV money and revenue etc not taken in there. Well hopefully it is something like that.

The club dont seem to be overly concerned about it which with their financial shrewd nature it should be alright.

[Yngwie]

It's for our SPL season, with all the associated TV money etc.

We disposed of the Social Club on Greig Street, and this income, together with Directors' loans, allowed us to generate sufficient cash to meet our outgoings

Source - Chairman's Report

Translation : if we hadn't sold the Social Club, and if the directors hadn't put more money in, we wouldn't have had enough money to pay the bills.

It's nothing to panic about, but highlights that the club will not be sustainable in its current form without regular injections of cash, significantly increased prize money, or a drastically reduced wage bill.

[starchief]

Frightening stuff. How much more can we cut?

[Libero]

More information now on the official site; clicky

[Scotty]

Does anyone have a copy of the accounts to give a bit more understanding of our underlying performance?

Accounts will be sent out to shareholders prior to the AGM ....

bottom line though, based on what (little) I know, and also taking previous years reports into account, is that finances for 'smaller' teams like ICT are always going to be on a knife edge .... early cup exits (especially in the Scottish Cup), relegation, reduced crowds, and various other factors will always see us (and others) steer close to the wind and although we may not have an overdraft, we also have little or nothing in the way of assets either so unless Scottish football suddenly gets an influx of cash via sponsorship or some other windfalls (like the European payments discussed a few weeks ago) then a lot of teams will walk that same tightrope.

On the flip side, it should also mean that those who declare themselves as interested parties in terms of injecting cash or maybe even taking a larger role or a controlling interest in the club are doing so because they are genuinely interested in ICT ... they certainly aren't doing it for the immense profit to be made !

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

When the feck did we ever have a classy Romanian ??

Savage is more of a businessman than my Uncle George - maybe he can find the stashed away money put aside to pay Marius which we never needed.

On a more serious note - how can anybody expect us to run a profit making business in the SPL - when we have all the costs involved in travel, minimal attendances and wages that have to attract to a degree. Without a fair degree of sponsorship we will always be lookin to go in to the red.

Again it is a clear argument to put that wee bit more cash in to our Academy system and do a mini Man Utd. It does feel to me that we are getting the family feel back to the club and I have nowt but admiration to those fans - and there are a number of them - who do bits and pieces for no cash remuneration.

[12th Man]

If they want to increase profits how about having 3 people working the bar instead of 2 when the old firm are playing the queues are like the pie qs of old.

[Alex MacLeod]

It's for our SPL season, with all the associated TV money etc.

We disposed of the Social Club on Greig Street, and this income, together with Directors' loans, allowed us to generate sufficient cash to meet our outgoings

Source - Chairman's Report

Translation : if we hadn't sold the Social Club, and if the directors hadn't put more money in, we wouldn't have had enough money to pay the bills.

It's nothing to panic about, but highlights that the club will not be sustainable in its current form without regular injections of cash, significantly increased prize money, or a drastically reduced wage bill.

One thing we have done is reduced the wage bill. Those who were released were on big wages, hence the reason for letting them go. Butcher made no secret of the fact that he could get players from south of the border for a lot less than home grown demand. The club no longer has the overheads and running costs of the social club to contend with. Just a shame we cant build on our support.

[Council Juice]

I'd imagine the club, whilst getting money from sponsorship and TV revenue would also likewise have to spend money once we came up, wage clauses, extra staff, bringing in more players etc.

Until it goes from a loss, to an actual debt I'm hoping that I wont get too worried about such matters. Im sure the club will take measures to make sure this loss is taken care of (hence the recent ?250k investment)

[BornCaley]

Out of interest, how does someone become the chairman of ICT? Is it simply who puts the most money into he pot? or are there other factors considered?

It seems that Fraser & Savage have their business ties. But do succesfull businessmen make for good chairmans? Certainly Murray provided the goods at Rangers!

Edited August 30, 2011 by BornCaley

[dougiedanger]

Out of interest, how does someone become the chairman of ICT? Is it simply who puts the most money into he pot? or are there other factors considered?

It seems that Fraser & Savage have their business ties. But do succesfull businessmen make for good chairmans? Certainly Murray provided the goods at Rangers!

I know, the Gers do get lucky with their chairmen. Murray leaves after a glorious reign and next minute they have another billionaire on board, wealth off the scale, lives in a castle, everything.

[Alex MacLeod]

A good chairman needs to have a good business sense and even better management skills.

[caleyboy]

Out of interest, how does someone become the chairman of ICT? Is it simply who puts the most money into he pot? or are there other factors considered?

It seems that Fraser & Savage have their business ties. But do succesfull businessmen make for good chairmans? Certainly Murray provided the goods at Rangers!

George Fraser certainly isn't the biggest donor but he is The Builders main man. George Fraser is a good guy tho and he was/is interested in and understands the game, unlike his mentor. I really don't know if Alan Savage was a good chairman or not last time round. It would be interesting to hear if people think he should take over again?

[CaleyD]

Don't think Alan Savage got the chance to show exactly what he could bring to the table as a Chairman.

It's very difficult to expect anyone, Board Member or otherwise, to invest heavily when you already have an "outsider" (someone not on the board or sitting in the chair) who is the largest shareholder and in a position to veto just about every idea you might put forward. That needs to change if we are to get (different) people in who are not only willing to invest in return for a shareholding, but who want to invest just for the sake of investing and seeing the club improve. I for one would not (even if I had the money) be sticking large sums of money in if I had little or no say in how it was going to be spent or in the knowledge that I could be dumped at any given moment.

On the flip-side, it must also be very difficult to find someone who Sutherland/Tullochs would be willing to sell/pass shares too as what they have done, and are still doing, at the moment to keep the wolf from the door is a lot to expect someone else to take over. Let's not forget that it's more than the club we're talking about, there's also the stadium which has a shed load of debt sitting with it that needs to be serviced/underwritten...and I would not expect to see Sutherland/Tullochs maintain that service if they were handing control to someone else.

In a nutshell, we need someone who is not only willing to invest in the club, but take on responsibility for the troublesome step child as well.

[Scotty]

Out of interest, how does someone become the chairman of ICT? Is it simply who puts the most money into he pot? or are there other factors considered?

Here's a list of our chairmen past and present .....

John ('Jock') McDonald 1994/95 --- selected during merger talks given his 21 year history of involvement with the SFA, he lasted until the end of our first season in May 1995 when Stadium Director Dougie McGilvray took over.

McGilvray was chairman from May 95 to January 2000 when the board was "restructured" with David Sutherland taking over.

Sutherland's first stint as chairman lasted from January 2000 to April 2002 when the board resigned en-masse after shareholders rejected a 'debenture issue' designed to raise ?150K. I was at that meeting, and from my recollection, the opposition to the issue was led by a former chairman and another major shareholder who never sought to be chairman at any point. The issue was resolved later in the month when Tullochs increased their holdings in the club to 51% for ?500K. when this was ratified by other shareholders, Ken Mackie was chosen (by Tullochs) to be chairman. Part of the deal with Tulloch (ie. Sutherland) was that Tulloch would be allowed to appoint 3 directors including the chairman for a period of five years - or at least that is my recollection of it.

Ken Mackie was the first "Tulloch" chairman and was in the post from May 2002 to November 2005. At the AGM in 2005, shareholders voted to allow the club to revert to a private company allowing Tulloch's to increase their holdings by ploughing in another ?400K and David Sutherland came back as Chairman for the second time.

David Sutherland insisted at the time that he did not really want to be in the chair and he only stayed there for a short time ... until August 2006. He relinquished the post in favour of Alan Savage who was coming in and making an investment in the club. At the time, Sutherland said he would like to transfer the Tulloch holdings to a new Inverness Sports Trust and top it up with a further 200K donation. the club made a pre-tax profit of ?220K that season ! It should also be noted that this was also the season where the Members' Club (with its 10% voting rights) was dissolved and the voting rights passed onto the Supporters' Trust.

Savage was chairman from Aug 2006 to April 2008 when he stood down with immediate effect. It was well publicised that the chairman and "major shareholders" did not see eye to eye on certain things and after he stood down, our current Chairman George Fraser was selected as his replacement.

I think I have got the potted history mostly correct, and from writing this down, I think I am also correct in saying that the shareholders have never actually "elected" a chairman. We have either rubber-stamped a replacement at an AGM when the current chairman of the time has stood down down, or we have "ratified" the choice of the board at an AGM if the chairman has moved on during the rest of the year ... we have never actually had a choice between different candidates.

Having said that, I think for the most part we have had the right chairman in place at the right time for most of our history .... we may not have agreed with all their actions at the time, but looking back with hindsight does give you some perspective.

JM helped ease our entry into the league

DM navigated the treacherous waters of getting the stadium built

DS1 helped reduce our debt and make it manageable first time round

KM was quietly effective and extremely professional during our promotion wrangle with the SPL/Partick

DS2 finished the job of making our debt go away in his second stint

AS brought a fresh pair of eyes to the job and some good ideas

GF has been - for the most part - in the background as others at the club get on with things. Supported manager in push for instant promotion back to SPL after relegation.

so who next ............ and what will they bring to the table.

[BornCaley]

Thanks Scotty! Your last post makes Interesting reading. If my " reading between the lines"-ometer is working correctly, it seems that Tullochs interest in ICT is for their own reasons rather than footballing reasons!

Im interested in something CaleyD mentioned, that someone not on the board being the major shareholder! I assume that 'someone' is Tullochs themselves?

In short if any of us won the 86m Euro jackpot tonight it would be worthless as the 'major shareholder' would veto any investment by a supporter who happened to have 80m+ to spend...surely im reading that wrong?

[Scotty]

Whilst you are correct in assuming our major shareholder could indeed pretty much veto any investment based on the number of shares held, I think that is an overly simplistic view. There's a lot more involved and it comes down to personalities, vision and plans as much as money .....

He has said more than once that he would be willing to walk away if the right person or people came along who could take the club forward ... and call me naive if you want, but I do believe that general sentiment. What would happen to the shares, or what he would seek in terms of compensation to relinquish them is another subject, but in terms of control, I think he has been, and continues to see himself as a steadying influence and he genuinely wants whats best for the club in his eyes, even if we, the fans, have not always agreed with what that is.

Its not philanthropy, he is a very astute businessman, and his companies have benefitted from their association with ICT, but I would say it has been mutually beneficial thus far as ICT has certainly been pulled through and out of some sticky spots with him at the helm or even in the background .........

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

I would say that all of our ICT chairmen have brought something different to the club as well as usually ploughing some much needed funds in to it as well. But I have to say that my personal perspective - and many others is - that the Tulloch influence at times has taken the final say and made it very difficult fer Savage - I would even dub the period a power struggle. Savage walked becos he could not influence the club in the manner that he sought struggle - Mackie and my Uncle George were a mere extension of the Sutherland / Tulloch dynasty.

I was slightly surprised at the Savage appointment and it will be interesting to see what he brings to the table. Have the shareholding percentages swung ? If they havent yet then they probably will. But will we better off with Orion ?

Interesting times ahead.

[Scarlet Pimple]

Well, anyway, George Fraser is a good, and well-educated, gentleman and represented the club very well over his tenure.

He has good empathetic skills and is a good listener and makes the effort to go out of his way to get along with people and put them at their ease, especially if you are a visitor to the club.

He also communicates very well verbally and writes even better from what I have seen. In short, he has been a credit to ICT because he is a very classy guy whose friendly and down-to-earth personality is blessed with intelligence behind it.

And his heart definitely lies with the club. Hope he sticks around for a long time yet.

[CaleyD]

Thanks Scotty! Your last post makes Interesting reading. If my " reading between the lines"-ometer is working correctly, it seems that Tullochs interest in ICT is for their own reasons rather than footballing reasons!

Im interested in something CaleyD mentioned, that someone not on the board being the major shareholder! I assume that 'someone' is Tullochs themselves?

In short if any of us won the 86m Euro jackpot tonight it would be worthless as the 'major shareholder' would veto any investment by a supporter who happened to have 80m+ to spend...surely im reading that wrong?

Technically speaking, it's the Board who have the power to say yes/no to any offer to purchase shares.

Tulloch, as a holder of more than 25% of the issued shares can veto any resolution put to an AGM. However, that could/is changing. The recent 250,000 sale of shares diluted the Tulloch shareholding to about 27.5% (assuming they weren't one of the purchasers) and a further 250,000 share purchase by this new consortium would take that below the 25%. Granted, that situation would still need every other shareholder to vote in favour of a resultion Tulloch may object to, but it is possible and it's no different than the situation should any other group of shareholders with a combined total exceeding 25% wish to veto something.

I've never witnessed Tulloch use that position to veto anything, and unless it was to prevent something damaging to the club then I wouldn't expect to see it...but the position exists (for now).

We have all witnessed the Board using their powers to reject an offer for shares when that porn dude was looking to invest...and I doubt anyone would say they were wrong to have done that.

What's equally important is that the Board have the power to stop the transfer of shares between parties (except when transfer is initiated by death of the holder). That means that nobody could go in an purchase then pass to someone else.

FWIW, the only Director with any significant shareholding (excluding the recent purchase as we don't know who that involves...yet) is Sandy Catto (via Scotlog). The requirement for Directors to have a qualifying shareholding was removed in 2002.

With regards Chairman/Director appointments....the board are self-appointing. In other words, you have to be on the board to have any part in the decision to appoint new Directors and or the Chairman. The only way a vote would ever be called for at an AGM/EGM (under the current setup) would be if they were to all resign on mass without appointing replacements first.

The appointment of Directors by Tulloch has no time restraint mentioned in the most recent Articles and Memorandums, so long as they hold more than 25% of the issued shares then they are entitled to appoint 3 directors. The right to appoint the chairman expired in 2007 according to the most recent Art & Mems...however, this date seems to have magically appeared without resolution since the previous set of Art & Mems and is not mentioned in the original Special Resolution that put the right in place to begin with.

It should be noted that the maximum number of directors was increased at last years AGM from "six" to "eight or such other number number of directors as the Board may from time to time determine". This hasn't happened and the Board remains the same, but if it ever were increased then Tulloch would no longer have control of the Board. The minimum number is 3.

Please note that I am only giving the facts as I understand them from the documents referred too, how you choose to interpret that is up to you. This information is available to everyone via Companies House.

[givmeaccccc]

As per a previous post there is no chance of Savage becoming Chairman as he isn't on the Board. It has been made very clear that the appointment will be from within the current Board.