The AGM of ICTFC Ltd will be held on Monday 18 December and today we have issued notice to shareholders, which includes the Club’s annual report and financial statements.

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/2060-club-statement-annual-report-23-11-17

3 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I don't think it really matters when a rent write-off is agreed. It's surely when it's actually written off that it disappears from the accounts and this process is only being finalised now. Items "missing" the accounts deadline is an annual factor, so these 2016-17 accounts may well also have benefited from something similar at the start of the accounting period. In terms of cost cutting, the most excessive wages have been steadily been getting removed from the player pool and, as we were told at the AGM, wages have dropped to as little as £250 a week. Also, if all that much has been bounced forward to 2017-18, then that will presumably reduce the need for whatever subsidy will be required in the current season - albeit a season of reduced Championship income streams.

Any adjustments that were needed for the 2015/16 period would have been shown in the 2016/17 papers issued at the last AGM.  It's part of the reason accounts show the previous years figures....so that ones a non starter.

You, yourself, have made the point on many occasions that we have no clue as to what players are being paid.  Are you now in possession of information on the current squad which changes that?  The club had players, allegedly, on wages of less than £250 whilst we were in the Premiership....so, even if true, that would be nothing new.

Robbo claims that £1.2 Million* (I think that's what it had grown to the last time he mentioned it) was cut from the playing budget.  The chairman claimed that the impact on the club's income from relegation would be £1.2 Million.  If both those figures are to be believed then they cancel out.  If you take the loss from last year at face value....even though the Chairman has confirmed that it will reduce as a result of things I mentioned previously....then the loans (converted to shares) from earlier in the season cancel out the need for that this financial year.  Why then, and again this is from the Chairman's mouth, do we need further substantial investment this season?

The maths don't stack up.

It also doesn't get away from the fact that the Chairman told everyone from day one that they had a plan that would remove the need for these gifts....and we've seen not a single iota of evidence to back up that this is happening or is likely to happen.  They either lied....and I don't think they have lied in this instance....or they didn't know what they were getting in to and are failing, badly.

*Robbo also claimed that the clubs income from gate receipts was down by £1.7 Million (you were in the press conference that day Charles), a number that doesn't match with the clubs claimed total loss of income, let alone one part of it....and also a figure I would peg at being about what the clubs total income from tickets (walk up and season tickets) would have been while we were in the premiership.  Since we're not letting everyone in for free, then I suspect it's an inaccurate claim.

3 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

The quarter of a million pound 'hole' in terms annual finances pertains when we are in the top tier with a number of games with two or three thousand away fans, a bigger home support, higher ticket prices, greater commercial income and much larger TV revenue.

The inbuilt deficit for a mediocre season in the Championship is more like a million pounds. In my view the current board are doing a reasonable job in very challenging circumstances.

In my opinion the use of professional consultants rather than enthusiastic amateurs in certain areas is a step in the right direction and will pay dividends in years to come.

See my post in response to Charles Bannerman.  If the figures provided by the Manager and Chairman are to be believed, then there should be no additional deficit as a result of us being relegated.

If we had a million pound, or someone was willing to bank roll that spending, in a push to get back to the premiership (as happened las time) then great....but we don't have that money and the current board seem intent on spending it and hoping that someone else coughs up the cash to cover it.

I wouldn't argue with your last point, other than to say that you need to use the right professional consultants for the right reasons...or you end up throwing (other people's) good money after bad.

3 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

It also looks as if Caley D may have reverted to his previous status following his "e*se-licking happy clapper" period. 

You do know that it was IHE who coined that phrase? Which speaks volumes for it's credibility ?

22 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

Any adjustments that were needed for the 2015/16 period would have been shown in the 2016/17 papers issued at the last AGM.  It's part of the reason accounts show the previous years figures....so that ones a non starter.

You, yourself, have made the point on many occasions that we have no clue as to what players are being paid.  Are you now in possession of information on the current squad which changes that?  The club had players, allegedly, on wages of less than £250 whilst we were in the Premiership....so, even if true, that would be nothing new.

Robbo claims that £1.2 Million* (I think that's what it had grown to the last time he mentioned it) was cut from the playing budget.  The chairman claimed that the impact on the club's income from relegation would be £1.2 Million.  If both those figures are to be believed then they cancel out.  If you take the loss from last year at face value....even though the Chairman has confirmed that it will reduce as a result of things I mentioned previously....then the loans (converted to shares) from earlier in the season cancel out the need for that this financial year.  Why then, and again this is from the Chairman's mouth, do we need further substantial investment this season?

The maths don't stack up.

It also doesn't get away from the fact that the Chairman told everyone from day one that they had a plan that would remove the need for these gifts....and we've seen not a single iota of evidence to back up that this is happening or is likely to happen.  They either lied....and I don't think they have lied in this instance....or they didn't know what they were getting in to and are failing, badly.

*Robbo also claimed that the clubs income from gate receipts was down by £1.7 Million (you were in the press conference that day Charles), a number that doesn't match with the clubs claimed total loss of income, let alone one part of it....and also a figure I would peg at being about what the clubs total income from tickets (walk up and season tickets) would have been while we were in the premiership.  Since we're not letting everyone in for free, then I suspect it's an inaccurate claim.

What I am saying is that more or less every year things applying to it will drop off the ends of the accounts into the next year, so a lot of these factors are self-cancelling in whole or in part. The £250 a week was quoted by the manager at the AGM in respect of, I think, Coll Donaldson. We are, of course, talking about first team wages here. The rest are a fraction and we don't want to muddy the water.

We do seem to be making an incredible meal of the fairly obvious - that the new board have come in, realised the cash that had been splashed in the past (and not to any great effect) and are doing their best to reduce expenditure as well as increase earned revenue streams. This would also appear to be a reasonable approximation to what Kingsmills has also been saying, although he is free to contradict me if it's not.

As an aside, I wonder what a complete outsider would make of a chronological list of all your CTO posts which come to some judgement on how well the club's affairs are being run at any particular time? 

45 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

What I am saying is that more or less every year things applying to it will drop off the ends of the accounts into the next year, so a lot of these factors are self-cancelling in whole or in part. The £250 a week was quoted by the manager at the AGM in respect of, I think, Coll Donaldson. We are, of course, talking about first team wages here. The rest are a fraction and we don't want to muddy the water.

We do seem to be making an incredible meal of the fairly obvious - that the new board have come in, realised the cash that had been splashed in the past (and not to any great effect) and are doing their best to reduce expenditure as well as increase earned revenue streams. This would also appear to be a reasonable approximation to what Kingsmills has also been saying, although he is free to contradict me if it's not.

As an aside, I wonder what a complete outsider would make of a chronological list of all your CTO posts which come to some judgement on how well the club's affairs are being run at any particular time? 

Financially, they are self cancelling, but when people use those figures to create a picture of how people ran/run things, then they take on other significance.

The board have not "come in" new to this.  The Muirfield Mills group have had representation on, and a hand in, the decisions of the board for a number of years....so nothing should be new to them in regards how money was spent, or other things done.  Again I make the point....if the playing budget has been cut by the same amount as the expected drop in revenue, and the £450k already "gifted" cancels out the additional "loss"....why are we still looking for handouts?  Have costs risen elsewhere?  Has the playing budget not been cut as much as claimed/planned?  Did the club get the projected revenues wrong?

We've been told that cuts are being made and income is being increased....but the numbers aren't backing that up.  As a man of science, I thought you would be more disposed to looking at and testing the evidence that presents and not being lead by any sleight of hand or word that accompanies a performance!

Kingsmills is right, if we had done as we did before and kept the squad as was in order to make a push straight back to the Premiership, then we could have expected a £1 Million "hole".  What we are seeing though is the removal of the expected hole (by cutting the playing budget) and the emergence of another....for which there is no given explanation by the club.

In response to your aside.  People are free to make of my posts what they will, outsiders or otherwise, they have done for years. 

I ask no questions and make no point on here that I have not, or would not make directly elsewhere....never have....at any particular time.  However, at particular times, those running the club have been more disposed to open, honest and direct communication (bringing with it the courtesy of trust) which has removed the need for the use of more public arenas.

Oh My, Jock Mackay!

Charlie what is an oxymoron? Sorry but I don't have my Oxford English Dictionary with me today. Is that an ox with big horns being ridden by a somewhat doltish figure.?Better not wear your Viking cap to the next meeting old chap lest you create a wrong impression to the influential  high heid yins and the lesser lights like Pimples, Pinochio and Paupers.

As to the figures , without any Club, or even Scottish, documents readily  to hand here in the Canadian wilderness what I was referring to  (as you well know) was the large loss for last year being in excess of what the European cash injected into the club a few months ago turned out to be . There was a shortfall by  comparison of some 50,000 pounds wasn't there?. My question was simple; where did that windfall money go to  exactly. But, as always, you had to nit-pick it to death.

Please have a look at how Caley D sets out his thoughts. Always concise, non- critical of others, and generally very factual and balanced. And he doesn't wear  Viking hat so  maybe the Lord hath blessed  his cranium.. 

Cheers Charlie. Off you go, back to chat and chirping.

relatives and friends of caleyd would agree with you, others wouldn't.  I don' t know where I sit as I don' t know the guy. his very simple calculation is easy to absorb so yet again the board are not telling us everything. maybe Mr Rae could respond to this very valid point or do we again "need to contact the club direct" and hope someone responds honestly.

10 hours ago, Scarlet Pimple said:

Please have a look at how Caley D sets out his thoughts. Always concise, non- critical of others, and generally very factual and balanced. And he doesn't wear  Viking hat so  maybe the Lord hath blessed  his cranium.. 

Cheers Charlie. Off you go, back to chat and chirping.

Oh well, Scarlet, as long as you are content to reconcile that with the historical sequence of:- a constant tide of condemnation prior to an apparent visit to Damascus, upon which Inverness Caledonian Thistle suddenly achieved a period of administrative perfection up to and including over-resourced relegation.... before reverting to consistent mismanagement on more recent regime change.

13 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Oh well, Scarlet, as long as you are content to reconcile that with the historical sequence of:- a constant tide of condemnation prior to an apparent visit to Damascus, upon which Inverness Caledonian Thistle suddenly achieved a period of administrative perfection up to and including over-resourced relegation.... before reverting to consistent mismanagement on more recent regime change.

Really, Charles....you're going with the argumentum ad hominem approach?

I'm certainly following this thread with interest.

I assume Alan Savage hasn't much/any input at the moment? I assumed after he picked up some of those Hospice shares that he would be getting back into the mix...and also that the return of Robbo had his fingerprints on it.

41 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

Really, Charles....you're going with the argumentum ad hominem approach?

No, I'm simply putting your CTO comments - current and historical - into a realistic context. This in particular may help forum users, especially more recently joined ones, to evaluate them - which I think is very appropriate and necessary.

So, to provide a little more detail than in my previous post.... for an extended period on here some years ago, you waged a constant campaign of criticism and undermining of the stewardship of this club, prominent within which was the constant highlighting of any and every difficulty - real and imaginary - of which you could conceive.

Then, by a process which has never been entirely clear and despite your having seriously antagonised those in charge at the time, you suddenly became part of the "establishment" as a "volunteer". Equally suddenly, more or less overnight indeed, the tone of your CTO posts switched from arch-antagonist to those of an arch-apologist for an administration which could suddenly do no wrong. In consequence, some would argue that there was a great deal of "credibility" indeed in the phrase "e*se-licking happy clapper", which was IHE's penetrating observation on this new status. Alongside this ran considerable uncertainty, reflecting a potential conflict of interest, as to whether some "CaleyD" posts were personal observations or being offered in your capacity as a club functionary on behalf of the club.

Meanwhile, and coinciding remarkably with you ceasing to hold any position within the club, the "worm has turned" again, the happy clapping has stopped and board members once more have to use toilet paper in considerable quantities. This is a process which is more than evident from the stark contrast between your more recent, suddenly once again negative posts, and your earlier, persistent assurances that the set-up which led to over-resourced relegation and financial crisis, was infallible.

I trust this puts into useful context a wide variety of "CaleyD" posts over an extended period of time.

So that will be a yes to you taking the argumentum ad hominem approach then ?

Leaving aside the personal nature of some of the above I don't think it was a big secret to most fans that the club were budgeting and spending for mid table in the premiership? Relegation was always going to have real financial consequences as has now become the case.  I would liken it to having a job with a good wage and managing your mortgage commitments etc but then suddenly you get made redundant? I think that scenario would apply to a lot of us and the way the football club was run is no different.

Last time we were relegated the money was found to get us out of the hole we were in and thankfully worked quickly. This time the suggestion was that the same would happen, have a look at the original ST renewal letter that was sent. How many of the players mentioned there are actually still here? Even if you do accept the argument that we can have more players for less dosh we are still clearly living way above our means. Crowds and hospitality income is falling and may well become even poorer come renewal time in the summer. Personally (and It is only my opinion on what I see and hear) I think the current board are good at talking a good talk but the jury is well and truly out on whether they are up the job of sustaining our current setup or in fact taking it forward again.

The club have announced extensions to the sponsorship deals with the 3 main sponsors.  Statement on the club website is as follows.

"Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC are delighted to confirm their continued partnership with their three main sponsors.

Solicitors & Estate Agents McEwan Fraser Legal have put pen to paper on a contract extension for a third year to have their logo on the front of the home and away kits for season 2018/19. At the same time, Korrie Plumbing and Subway have extended their agreements with the club to have their logos on the back of the home and away kits next season.

ICT club chairman Graham Rae is delighted to have the continued support of the key sponsors next season. He said: “We look forward to building on the successful partnership we have built up with McEwan Fraser Legal, Korrie Plumbing and Subway in the new season. It’s great to have such big names in the commercial world wanting to be a big part or our revival and return to the Premiership.”"

On the face of it this is welcome news but there is nothing in the statement to indicate whether the level of sponsorship has changed.

Previous board made mistakes, but always carried the cost of that. Current board making mistakes and expecting everyone else to carry the costs.

Talk is meaningless. It's time for them to 5hit or get off the pot.

18 minutes ago, Buster said:

Talk is meaningless. It's time for them to 5hit or get off the pot.

OK, I will ask the obvious question.  What do you think they should do?

I am sure that they will welcome constructive suggestions.

What old caley girl says the stuff that was in the statements when looking for people to get season tickets.

2 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

The club have announced extensions to the sponsorship deals with the 3 main sponsors.  Statement on the club website is as follows.

"Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC are delighted to confirm their continued partnership with their three main sponsors.

Solicitors & Estate Agents McEwan Fraser Legal have put pen to paper on a contract extension for a third year to have their logo on the front of the home and away kits for season 2018/19. At the same time, Korrie Plumbing and Subway have extended their agreements with the club to have their logos on the back of the home and away kits next season.

ICT club chairman Graham Rae is delighted to have the continued support of the key sponsors next season. He said: “We look forward to building on the successful partnership we have built up with McEwan Fraser Legal, Korrie Plumbing and Subway in the new season. It’s great to have such big names in the commercial world wanting to be a big part or our revival and return to the Premiership.”"

On the face of it this is welcome news but there is nothing in the statement to indicate whether the level of sponsorship has changed.

Good news. Korrie and Subway have been long time supporters of the club in various ways and MFL signing up for a third year (and also sponsoring County from next season) shows a welcome commitment to the area.

2 hours ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

OK, I will ask the obvious question.  What do you think they should do?

I am sure that they will welcome constructive suggestions.

Good question. Some folks don't seem to understand that the club's most notable feature over time is what it has done in the face of adverse circumstances. However the most prominent comments seem to come when things depart from the charmed life that largely good governance has created because something short of perfection has disrupted this otherwise privileged existence. Most complaints seem to arise when a relatively rare error has meant that a fundamentally loss making lifestyle can no longer be cobbled together.

Er....As I have aged I have become more and more convinced that the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Sam) is by far the best way to communicate. After all, Charlie, least said, soonest mended...eh?   

Canadians always say "eh"?  after each  short utterance just to  make sure that the  party to whom the remark is addressed is still on the same page and has not yet succumbed to boredom and gone into a deep sleep. Please remember to say it  a lot to me  in future Charles.  Greatly appreciated. Thank you. very much.

And, with the best intentions, but mostly for my personal understanding of your speeches out of Hamlet or summat, , please do try the KISS principle. Just give it a whirl.  I know, I really know  you are an intellectual person, well-read and daily converse with the Oracle, but I'm 80 years old today and co-operating would be the nicest present you could give me via this Forum.  Get it, eh?

 

3 hours ago, Scarlet Pimple said:

Er....As I have aged I have become more and more convinced that the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Sam) is by far the best way to communicate. After all, Charlie, least said, soonest mended...eh?   

Canadians always say "eh"?  after each  short utterance just to  make sure that the  party to whom the remark is addressed is still on the same page and has not yet succumbed to boredom and gone into a deep sleep. Please remember to say it  a lot to me  in future Charles.  Greatly appreciated. Thank you. very much.

And, with the best intentions, but mostly for my personal understanding of your speeches out of Hamlet or summat, , please do try the KISS principle. Just give it a whirl.  I know, I really know  you are an intellectual person, well-read and daily converse with the Oracle, but I'm 80 years old today and co-operating would be the nicest present you could give me via this Forum.  Get it, eh?

 

Happy birthday Scarlet I hope you are having a good one

Edited March 7, 20187 yr by IBM

2 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Good question. Some folks don't seem to understand that the club's most notable feature over time is what it has done in the face of adverse circumstances. However the most prominent comments seem to come when things depart from the charmed life that largely good governance has created because something short of perfection has disrupted this otherwise privileged existence. Most complaints seem to arise when a relatively rare error has meant that a fundamentally loss making lifestyle can no longer be cobbled together.

I may be being slow here Charles but can you explain this further? 

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

 

3 hours ago, old caley girl said:

I may be being slow here Charles but can you explain this further? 

Apologies, OCG, I am probably a victim of my own attempt not to be too abrasive. A touch of the Sir Humphrys, perhaps.

Essentially what I'm saying is that I wish some people would accept that, thanks to pretty good governance, this club has led a charmed life for years. It's therefore not all that helpful trying to apportion blame when the realities of a fundamentally loss-making operation can no longer be kept at bay.

I would be even more reluctant to press the nuclear button with the suggestion that if people want a superior product then they should be prepared to pay more for it (as happens in any other line of business) instead of constantly looking round for other people to subsidise their activities.

I've deliberately avoided getting involved in this debate up till now, although I admit I have followed it, and quite enjoyed the 'banter', if that is what it is, between the two main protagonists, CB and CaleyD.  Not professing to know a fraction of what either of them apparently knows, I must say that my own opinion, garnered from all I've read to date, would lead me to side more with CB, whose comments in the above post, I think are spot on.  But, I've no doubt several posters may have different views.

Edited March 8, 20187 yr by Caley Mad In Berks