Latest Accounts

[Charles Bannerman]

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

Where there is flexibility to hold back a meeting to allow for details about future plans to be clarified, I have absolutely no objections to that happening. Indeed, it is often helpful to do so.  But that is not what is happening here.  The Club is obliged to hold its AGM no later than 15 months after the previous AGM and therefore, the flexibility to delay ran out in December.  And there has not been a word of explanation or apology from the club.

Current issues include:-

* An AGM, the holding of which is doubly in default of Para 55 of the Articles of Association, has yet to take place.

* Based on a throw away remark in a statement issued nine days ago, we are led to believe that this is to be held on March 28th (the night of a Scotland Euro qualifier v Spain). However the 21 days statutory notice of an AGM on that date (Para 58) expired three days ago.

* On February 28th, the last day allowed for filing, the accounts appeared on the Companies House website indicating losses to May 2022 of £835,000 and increased debts to trade creditors and HMRC, but no indication of turnover. So far there has been no acknowledgement, such as in the March 1st statement, by the club of any detail of these accounts.

* What changes have there been in the club’s financial status in over nine months since May 2022?

* Given that the Concert Company collapsed (with minimal detail provided), new income sources are urgently needed. Much has been made of a potential deal with a land company and of a battery farm. Given that the club’s capacity to earn money is very limited (although unknown due to the absence of a turnover figure) it would appear that the need for these income streams is quite urgent. How quickly will the battery farm etc come on stream?

Edited March 10, 2023 by Charles Bannerman

[IBM]

The Chairman is busy with other things.

Caley Thistle chairman calls for action on energy prices by next First Minister (inverness-courier.co.uk)

[+DoofersDad]

Yesterday's game is a stark reminder of how important it is to get clarity on what the Club's financial plans are.  We have a squad of players who have shown they are good enough to compete in the Premiership if we can be reasonably injury free.  But bear in mind that the latest accounts (on which the club has not commented) state that the financial projections are reliant on uncertain sources of income and operational cost savings, and that new auditors have "material concerns" about the club preparing the accounts on a going concern basis.

It would appear that cutting operational costs is inevitable and the biggest part of operational costs is presumably the player budget.  With other costs rising (such as energy costs as highlighted in IBM's post above), it seems likely that there will be significant pressure on the player budget.  Whilst it is still possible to gain promotion this season, we have to assume that we won't. Therefore unless we get clarity soon about a viable financial plan for next season,  many of the players who performed so well last night on national TV will be off elsewhere when their contracts come to an end at the end of the season, or they will be sold for less than they are worth in order to reduce the wage bill.  If that happens, we will do well next season not to exit the Championship through the back door.

In other words, if we don't win promotion this year, we are highly unlikely to do so next year.  We need to get right behind the team for the rest of the season and hope we get the major financial boost promotion would bring.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Now that is a post that hits the nail right through the MDF. 

[STFU]

On 3/6/2023 at 2:59 PM, STFU said:

Neither Scot Gardiner or the current Chairman have done a single thing they said they would do since being in situ, so there's nothing to base any trust on.

Plan A was the concerts.  Plan B seems to be some sort of park and ride scheme using carparks the club doesn't even own, and a battery storage facility being built half way across the city which we only seem to be lending our name to, and which is already facing planning objections.

I make no apology for remaining extremely sceptical.

Can we now add the AGM to the list of things said but not done?

[Yngwie]

18 minutes ago, STFU said:

Can we now add the AGM to the list of things said but not done?

I suppose that depends on whether it happens or not.
You make regular references to broken promises- I’d be interested in seeing your list.

[STFU]

You start with this... ictfccustomercharter2020.pdf

[highlandexile]

wow, I've never seen the customer charter before.  What a total fail.

Responding to any contact from a supporter within seven days!!!!

And the commination section is just a joke!

[Yngwie]

I’d never seen it either, didn’t know it existed! They fail regarding communication and regular consultation with fans and Caley Jags Together. The rest of it they seem to be fully or substantially meeting, as far as I can see.

[+Fraz]

22 hours ago, STFU said:

You start with this... ictfccustomercharter2020.pdf

The fact that nobody seems to have known this existed says it all I think. At a quick glance, I'd say 7/8 of those have been missed. I'd also add in the massive waste of time that was the 'fans forum' which never went anywhere and years later the minutes of the 3rd and final meeting were never released.  

What about the West Stand roof that couldn't be done because of the upcoming concerts. Yet when they were finished it was incommunicado then 'it needed crowd funded'. 

[+DoofersDad]

On 3/12/2023 at 9:41 PM, STFU said:

You start with this... ictfccustomercharter2020.pdf

Thanks for posting this.  I note the document you have attached is dated October 2020 but  the document currently on the Club's website is dated October 2021.  I have gone back through the Club's "latest news" postings on its website and neither version was communicated via that communication channel.  

The charter commits to ensuring supporters are kept informed by (amongst other routes) "Consulting our supporters on a regular basis both through Caley Jags Together (formerly the ICT Supporters Trust) meetings and ongoing direct communication.  Supporters who are not members will be consulted through informal activities."  I was the Chair of the Supporters Trust during this period and at no time were we informed that a Customer Charter was being prepared, we were not consulted, nor were informed it existed, let alone provided with a copy!

Had we been consulted, we would, of course, have pointed out that the ICT Supporters Trust was formerly also known as Caley Jags Together and not the other way round.  The CJT name has not been used by the Trust since I have had an involvement with the Trust and certainly not since the current Club Chairman and CEO have been in post.  It is quite bizarre that such an error should be made in a document in the first place, let alone in one which has apparently been reviewed.

It is, of course, also bizarre that the Club should prepare and review a document which commits to consultation and communication with the Supporters Trust and the wider fan base, and then fail to consult about it or communicate it!  Clearly this document is a tick box exercise and does not indicate any intention or willingness to consult or communicate with the supporters in any meaningful way.

 

[RiG]

Not a fan of a document referring to supporters as "customers".

[STFU]

7 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Thanks for posting this.  I note the document you have attached is dated October 2020 but  the document currently on the Club's website is dated October 2021.  I have gone back through the Club's "latest news" postings on its website and neither version was communicated via that communication channel.  

The charter commits to ensuring supporters are kept informed by (amongst other routes) "Consulting our supporters on a regular basis both through Caley Jags Together (formerly the ICT Supporters Trust) meetings and ongoing direct communication.  Supporters who are not members will be consulted through informal activities."  I was the Chair of the Supporters Trust during this period and at no time were we informed that a Customer Charter was being prepared, we were not consulted, nor were informed it existed, let alone provided with a copy!

Had we been consulted, we would, of course, have pointed out that the ICT Supporters Trust was formerly also known as Caley Jags Together and not the other way round.  The CJT name has not been used by the Trust since I have had an involvement with the Trust and certainly not since the current Club Chairman and CEO have been in post.  It is quite bizarre that such an error should be made in a document in the first place, let alone in one which has apparently been reviewed.

It is, of course, also bizarre that the Club should prepare and review a document which commits to consultation and communication with the Supporters Trust and the wider fan base, and then fail to consult about it or communicate it!  Clearly this document is a tick box exercise and does not indicate any intention or willingness to consult or communicate with the supporters in any meaningful way.

 

If you google it, the link is/was to the one I attached, unless it's been changed since then.

[+Fraz]

11 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Thanks for posting this.  I note the document you have attached is dated October 2020 but  the document currently on the Club's website is dated October 2021.  I have gone back through the Club's "latest news" postings on its website and neither version was communicated via that communication channel.  

The charter commits to ensuring supporters are kept informed by (amongst other routes) "Consulting our supporters on a regular basis both through Caley Jags Together (formerly the ICT Supporters Trust) meetings and ongoing direct communication.  Supporters who are not members will be consulted through informal activities."  I was the Chair of the Supporters Trust during this period and at no time were we informed that a Customer Charter was being prepared, we were not consulted, nor were informed it existed, let alone provided with a copy!

Had we been consulted, we would, of course, have pointed out that the ICT Supporters Trust was formerly also known as Caley Jags Together and not the other way round.  The CJT name has not been used by the Trust since I have had an involvement with the Trust and certainly not since the current Club Chairman and CEO have been in post.  It is quite bizarre that such an error should be made in a document in the first place, let alone in one which has apparently been reviewed.

It is, of course, also bizarre that the Club should prepare and review a document which commits to consultation and communication with the Supporters Trust and the wider fan base, and then fail to consult about it or communicate it!  Clearly this document is a tick box exercise and does not indicate any intention or willingness to consult or communicate with the supporters in any meaningful way.

 

Bizarre perhaps but not surprising and exactly what I would expect from a club who were unable to even organise a Christmas Kids Party. 

[STFU]

On 3/20/2023 at 12:46 PM, DoofersDad said:

Thanks for posting this.  I note the document you have attached is dated October 2020 but  the document currently on the Club's website is dated October 2021.  I have gone back through the Club's "latest news" postings on its website and neither version was communicated via that communication channel.  

The charter commits to ensuring supporters are kept informed by (amongst other routes) "Consulting our supporters on a regular basis both through Caley Jags Together (formerly the ICT Supporters Trust) meetings and ongoing direct communication.  Supporters who are not members will be consulted through informal activities."  I was the Chair of the Supporters Trust during this period and at no time were we informed that a Customer Charter was being prepared, we were not consulted, nor were informed it existed, let alone provided with a copy!

Had we been consulted, we would, of course, have pointed out that the ICT Supporters Trust was formerly also known as Caley Jags Together and not the other way round.  The CJT name has not been used by the Trust since I have had an involvement with the Trust and certainly not since the current Club Chairman and CEO have been in post.  It is quite bizarre that such an error should be made in a document in the first place, let alone in one which has apparently been reviewed.

It is, of course, also bizarre that the Club should prepare and review a document which commits to consultation and communication with the Supporters Trust and the wider fan base, and then fail to consult about it or communicate it!  Clearly this document is a tick box exercise and does not indicate any intention or willingness to consult or communicate with the supporters in any meaningful way.

 

I agree with all you say, but I am perplexed by the fact that you see all this, yet still seem convinced that the club will not also ignore the outcome of the fan survey

[+DoofersDad]

13 hours ago, STFU said:

I agree with all you say, but I am perplexed by the fact that you see all this, yet still seem convinced that the club will not also ignore the outcome of the fan survey

 I am far from convinced that the Club will not ignore the survey.  What the survey does is to provide a channel for people express their views in a reasonably structured way.  It will allow the Trust to inform the Club about issues which significant numbers of people have expressed dissatisfaction about.  This will make it harder to ignore than if a handful of folk express similar concerns on social media.  Clearly, the more people who complete the survey, the more validity the findings have.  

[STFU]

Doesn't matter how valid the results are if they are ignored

[Yngwie]

Why on earth would the club ignore the results? It’s market research, it tells them what ‘customers’ like and don’t like, and enables the club to make informed decisions with information they don’t currently have.

Now, making those informed decisions certainly does not mean doing what the fans want - if the cost of making a particular change outweighs the benefits and makes it non viable financially, then the club won’t do it, and nor should they.

So you are probably right if you mean the club won’t make many changes as a result of the survey, but I very much doubt they would ignore it.

[+DoofersDad]

Time will tell how the club responds to the survey outcomes, but hopefully they will help to encourage the club to engage a bit more constructively with fans that it has to date.  One thing for sure, is that it will provide some rather more structured views of the Club's supporters than has been available to the club before.  The findings will also be made public, which will mean that there would some considerable pressure for the club to respond to any serious concerns if they don't proactively do so themselves.

I agree with Yngwie in that the club shouldn't blindly do what fans want if it is not going to be cost effective, but if that is the case, then what the club should do, is to explain why they can't act on it.  In addition, the club shouldn't just dismiss the issue, it should, in partnership with the supporters, investigate if they are other more innovative ways of addressing the concerns.  Solutions which may not initially appear to be cost effective may become very cost effective if the improved matchday experience brings more people to the stadium and if it encourages them to spend more money when they do come.

[Naelifts]

 I've got me invite!.....26 April