Sign in to follow this  
ICTFC

CLUB STATEMENT : AGM & Annual Report : 23/11/17

Recommended Posts

On ‎17‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:59 PM, caleyboy said:

in the main Huisdean I agree but i cannot accept that moaning on here keeps people away from matches. Income from commercial activities is so very difficult when the club doesn't have the city behind it, just look at how poorly hospitality is supported.

Possibly caleyboy but don't think it helps in any way given the importance of social media to some

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has the lease for the stands etc been transferred back to the club yet? Or does anyone have an update?

Edited by caleyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the club website today.

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/2138-stadium-green-light-is-welcomed

Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC has warmly welcomed a decision by the Highland Council’s City of Inverness Area Committee to agree the transfer of the lease of the main stadium at Tulloch Caledonian Stadium and the North and South Stands from Tulloch Homes to the football club and also to permit access to the car parking areas for the foreseeable future.

The move has been agreed in principle by the Committee, as trustees of the Inverness Common Good Fund, and the transfer of the lease will now be finalised by legal representatives of the two parties.

From the football club’s stance, a successful outcome to these detailed negotiations places the club in a much better position to attract future investment. The asset will also boost the club’s balance sheet.

It also means the club would no longer require to pay an annual rental of £205,000 to Tulloch Homes and would see a write off of a rental debt to Tulloch Homes of more than £300,000.

Going forward, the club will pay £15,000 per year rent to the Council, as landlords, for the stadium and stands and £15,000 per year to Tulloch Homes, as holders of the lease, for the car parking areas.

The club had advised at the recent annual general meeting that further inward investment is required to ensure the immediate future of the club and to lay the foundation for a more sustainable financial model taking the club forward. Importantly for the club, the short-term sub-lease for the car parking areas will be in place until Tulloch Homes secure planning consent to develop the car park site but would be subject to a minimum period of three years. 

Tulloch have also confirmed their intention that any future development on the car parking areas would recognise the need for Caley Thistle to use the Stadium and Stands 24/7 for football and related purposes and that all such development, will require to comply with Planning and Building Regulations, Safety, Police, Ambulance and Regulatory rules then in force and key to Caley Thistle maintaining the Stadium’s Safety Certificate. That way, Caley Thistle will have no future concern regarding its ability to access and operate from the Stadium and Stands Site.

Graham Rae, Chairman of Inverness Caledonian Thistle, said: “We are very pleased indeed that councillors have agreed in principle to the new lease arrangements. This is crucial to the future of the club. This recognises the hugely important role we play in our community.

“Once the legal documents are signed, we will have a stadium on our balance sheet and be in a stronger position to attract inward financial investment and pursue other income generating initiatives, such as auctioning the Stadium Naming Rights.”

He said the club were very grateful to Tulloch Homes for agreeing to the transfer of the lease, which they first announced in December of 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Net of rent paid, I would place the value of Tulloch's assistance to ICT at a ballpark £3.5 million - and that's before you allow for the gifting back of the stadium fabric and £730,000 of shares. Then you have to add in millions more given as free gifts, most of it in large £50K+ slices from wealthy individuals over the last couple of decades.

But of course, Uncle Roy's millions are still  source of contempt and ridicule.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no question that Tullochs have come to the club's rescue on more than one occasion, but, as a fairly successful business, it's highly unlikely that they've squandered millions on ICT without ample recompense. 

Far from decrying them I'm intrigued as to their intentions for future development of the car parks. I'd like to think (dream) that it would involve relocation of the stadium to a new 7500 capacity purpose built mini-tynecastle type facility 😌.....however unlikely a scenario that is !!!!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Caley Stan said:

"an annual rental of £205,000" and now they've got the land they wanted. GTF Tulloch's apologist(s). 

One thing I never seem to hear from the anti-Tulloch squad is what the alternative strategy would have been for disposing of £2.6M of probably fatal debt, producing working capital to build a team to gain promotion to the SPL and providing stands to allow SPL football to be played in Inverness?

There seems to be an alarming presumption among some football supporters that it's somebody else's responsibility to owe clubs a living when their expenditure runs away ahead of their capacity to earn income.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling things are now a lot worse than the first time Tulloch got involved. someone please explain how the stadium (excluding the ground on which it sits) is reaĺistically  lodged as an asset when it is only of use as a football stadium? how can anyone put a realistic value on it? How can it be used to attract serious investment? just questìons, no agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, caleyboy said:

I get the feeling things are now a lot worse than the first time Tulloch got involved. someone please explain how the stadium (excluding the ground on which it sits) is reaĺistically  lodged as an asset when it is only of use as a football stadium? how can anyone put a realistic value on it? How can it be used to attract serious investment? just questìons, no agenda.

I'm not sure about that, Caleyboy. When Tulloch got involved first in 2000, there was a debt of around £2.6M, creating an imminent danger of collapse. Now, any debts will be small but earnings are a major issue. I also know that 450,000 new shares were allotted just the other week in exchange for money donated to keep things going post-relegation. I agree that the fabric of the stadium isn't worth a great deal given its limited use potential. And I remain unsure what the term "investment" means in football. I can't think of many situations where it means anything other than "charitable donation to remove debt and/or to allow expenditure to exceed earnings."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

So where has the allotment of 450,000 shares been communicated / advertised ? 

The shareholders' agreement to the issue of up to around 1 million extra shares was obtained at the EGM at the end of July. It was indicated at that time that a significant number of them were spoken for and the allotment of the 450,000 was recorded by Companies House a few days ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The shareholders' agreement to the issue of up to around 1 million extra shares was obtained at the EGM at the end of July. It was indicated at that time that a significant number of them were spoken for and the allotment of the 450,000 was recorded by Companies House a few days ago.

That agreement was superseded at the AGM when the maximum total allotment of shares for the company was increased to £6 Million.

Looking forward to all that money coming in!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I'm not sure about that, Caleyboy. When Tulloch got involved first in 2000, there was a debt of around £2.6M, creating an imminent danger of collapse. Now, any debts will be small but earnings are a major issue. I also know that 450,000 new shares were allotted just the other week in exchange for money donated to keep things going post-relegation. I agree that the fabric of the stadium isn't worth a great deal given its limited use potential. And I remain unsure what the term "investment" means in football. I can't think of many situations where it means anything other than "charitable donation to remove debt and/or to allow expenditure to exceed earnings."

I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong but was it not a trust that debt was transferred to? At that time we were all told it was for the good of football and the city not commercial gain. I don't have a problem with that if Sutherland told us that at the time. we were always told the club was debt free but that was obviously a lie. if tulloch have been charging us over £200k pa we have more than paid our dues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong but was it not a trust that debt was transferred to? At that time we were all told it was for the good of football and the city not commercial gain. I don't have a problem with that if Sutherland told us that at the time. we were always told the club was debt free but that was obviously a lie. if tulloch have been charging us over £200k pa we have more than paid our dues. 

Caleyboy, there has always been a considerable degree of smoke and mirrors since the debt was removed over the precise mechanics of that removal but yes, it was nominally to the Trust that the debt was transferred. However, in effect it appears to have been reconciled with the Bank of Scotland in some shape or form by Tullochs. I have to say that it was only when Tullochs' offer to donate the stadium fabric back to the club emerged in December 2016 that I began to see more clearly the full extent of the overlap between Tullochs and the Trust.

The way I see it is that the ICT Charitable Trust was set up as a tax efficient means of allowing Tullochs to remove the debt. Conspiracy theorists may at the one extreme suggest that the Trust was simply a vehicle for cynical asset stripping, and at the other that it allowed benefactors to retain a degree of anonymity. However, in the former case, a couple of observations need to be made. Firstly, almost 20 years on, the only contentious issue is long term use of the car parks by the club, and indeed a number of reassurances have been offered in that respect. And secondly, if there is an asset stripping conspiracy agenda then, as Trustees, public figures such as ex-Provost Allan Sellar and David Stewart MSP must have been complicit in it - along with the members of the Muirfield Mills consortium who now control the Trust, along with the 730,000 shares donated to it by Tullochs.

It's also worth observing that when the Inverness Caledonian Thistle Charitable Trust was set up, the legal conditions - as a quid pro quo for the tax concessions -  included the requirement that all local sporting organisations should be among its potential beneficiaries. However I am not aware of anyone other than Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC having benefited at all from its activities.

To me, it's quite clear that the club, as a company, became debt free because that debt, of around £2.6M, was taken away by some unspecified arrangement between Tullochs and the main creditor the Bank of Scotland. In  return, ownership of the stadium and its lease was transferred to the Trust rather than to Tullochs as discussed above. In terms of "dues", in order to work out what Tullochs have put in, you need to add up the £2.6M removed debt, £0.73M in cash in return for shares subsequently donated back to the Trust, the provision of the North and South stands, innumerable other, smaller "drip feed" contributions such as the provision of staff and, most recently, the write off of £300,000 of outstanding rent.... all of that also alongside the donation back of the stadium fabric. This has been estimated as having a gross value of around £6 million. As for rent paid in return, the only concrete figure we have is the current £205,000 pa. We don't know how much this was from the start of the 7500 capacity era and how it may ultimately have increased to that figure, nor do we know what it was for the pre-North and South stand period. However, I don't think that something in the ballpark of a net £3.5M, after deduction of rent paid, is an unreasonable estimate of what Tullochs have given to the club since around 2000.

I find it difficult to reconcile that figure with the notion that "we have more than paid our dues". (As an aside, I have always been a bit bemused by the view that the club should have been allowed to exist rent free in premises which it was obliged to give up because it vastly outspent its earning capacity.) I also find it difficult to see what, by way of keeping the club in existence, the alternatives back in the early 2000s would have been to the arrangements described above.

On the other hand if a "free lunch" extending to £3.5 with the only down side the title to the car parks over which significant assurances have been given is considered a bad deal......

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Caleyboy, there has always been a considerable degree of smoke and mirrors since the debt was removed over the precise mechanics of that removal but yes, it was nominally to the Trust that the debt was transferred. However, in effect it appears to have been reconciled with the Bank of Scotland in some shape or form by Tullochs. I have to say that it was only when Tullochs' offer to donate the stadium fabric back to the club emerged in December 2016 that I began to see more clearly the full extent of the overlap between Tullochs and the Trust.

The way I see it is that the ICT Charitable Trust was set up as a tax efficient means of allowing Tullochs to remove the debt. Conspiracy theorists may at the one extreme suggest that the Trust was simply a vehicle for cynical asset stripping, and at the other that it allowed benefactors to retain a degree of anonymity. However, in the former case, a couple of observations need to be made. Firstly, almost 20 years on, the only contentious issue is long term use of the car parks by the club, and indeed a number of reassurances have been offered in that respect. And secondly, if there is an asset stripping conspiracy agenda then, as Trustees, public figures such as ex-Provost Allan Sellar and David Stewart MSP must have been complicit in it - along with the members of the Muirfield Mills consortium who now control the Trust, along with the 730,000 shares donated to it by Tullochs.

It's also worth observing that when the Inverness Caledonian Thistle Charitable Trust was set up, the legal conditions - as a quid pro quo for the tax concessions -  included the requirement that all local sporting organisations should be among its potential beneficiaries. However I am not aware of anyone other than Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC having benefited at all from its activities.

To me, it's quite clear that the club, as a company, became debt free because that debt, of around £2.6M, was taken away by some unspecified arrangement between Tullochs and the main creditor the Bank of Scotland. In  return, ownership of the stadium and its lease was transferred to the Trust rather than to Tullochs as discussed above. In terms of "dues", in order to work out what Tullochs have put in, you need to add up the £2.6M removed debt, £0.73M in cash in return for shares subsequently donated back to the Trust, the provision of the North and South stands, innumerable other, smaller "drip feed" contributions such as the provision of staff and, most recently, the write off of £300,000 of outstanding rent.... all of that also alongside the donation back of the stadium fabric. This has been estimated as having a gross value of around £6 million. As for rent paid in return, the only concrete figure we have is the current £205,000 pa. We don't know how much this was from the start of the 7500 capacity era and how it may ultimately have increased to that figure, nor do we know what it was for the pre-North and South stand period. However, I don't think that something in the ballpark of a net £3.5M, after deduction of rent paid, is an unreasonable estimate of what Tullochs have given to the club since around 2000.

I find it difficult to reconcile that figure with the notion that "we have more than paid our dues". (As an aside, I have always been a bit bemused by the view that the club should have been allowed to exist rent free in premises which it was obliged to give up because it vastly outspent its earning capacity.) I also find it difficult to see what, by way of keeping the club in existence, the alternatives back in the early 2000s would have been to the arrangements described above.

On the other hand if a "free lunch" extending to £3.5 with the only down side the title to the car parks over which significant assurances have been given is considered a bad deal......

I don't think we have ever received a free lunch. what i do say is that tulloch / sutherland have been well paid for their "generosity" and the time has come to stop  harping on about it. 

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't factored in the cost of bank interest...which rent charged over the years didn't cover and (along with addition of the North/South stands) resulted in the debt being held by the trust rising to a figure I believe to have been in excess of £4 Million (and approaching 5).  Whilst the debt removed from the club was circa £2.6 Million, the cost including interest to Tullochs has been substantially more.

I'm not going to get into the whole argument about whether or not they've had their pound of flesh, but even as someone who had numerous run ins with the club and Tullochs over the years about the whole thing, I can see that the club have clearly had the better end of the deal.

One other thing. Muirfield Mills have never given a satisfactory answer as to why the leases were moved from the Trust to Tulloch....something that coincided with them taking control of the trust (for only £1 according to Dougie at the last AGM...and not challenged). They issued a great smokescreen document at the AGM, but conveniently skipped an important year in the summary and I don't buy their claim that they don't have the answer to the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

 

One other thing. Muirfield Mills have never given a satisfactory answer as to why the leases were moved from the Trust to Tulloch....something that coincided with them taking control of the trust (for only £1 according to Dougie at the last AGM...and not challenged). They issued a great smokescreen document at the AGM, but conveniently skipped an important year in the summary and I don't buy their claim that they don't have the answer to the question.

Most likely a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune. I didn't include bank interest because I regarded the debt at having, in effect, been written off by Tullochs at the start. Also, one of the sources of the figure of £6M is Tullochs themselves, so that may well be part of this number. How Tullochs disposed of ICT's debt has never been entirely clear, but it may indeed be worth including an interest factor - which will simply push the subsidy involved ever Northwards.

Edited by Charles Bannerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

Fascinating - So for the summary for this forum - How much are we currently in debt ?

I would imagine not a lot. When you have no significant assets as security and lack the means to service a debt in any case, that tends to be the situation. "Gentlemanly" loans may have been made by well disposed individuals but I think much of the inter-season shortfall may have been met by the £450K discussed earlier. What cash flow is like may or may not be another issue.

 

Edited by Charles Bannerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.