Kelty/ Is this a joke - merged thread

[Achfary]

23 minutes ago, NuclearDachshund said:

Why did so many on the board all go along with this nonsense for so long. I find it difficult to accept that they are all incompetent, though looking at the management at my work and suits in general, it’s quite possible they are.

A colleague!

The board are all retired, except Graeme and Scott Y as newer appointments, .  

Gardiner is largely unimpeded, at least was under Ross, hence the mess.  

Edited June 4 by Achfary

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

Companies House has not so far been notified that the former Chairman and Director is no longer a shareholder of ICT Battery Storage Limited. Indeed, just like the submission of the Club's annual accounts Companies House is also flagging up the late submission of key information.

 

[Yngwie]

14 minutes ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

Companies House has not so far been notified that the former Chairman and Director is no longer a shareholder of ICT Battery Storage Limited. Indeed, just like the submission of the Club's annual accounts Companies House is also flagging up the late submission of key information.

 

Why do you think he is no longer a shareholder in the battery company? It was only a couple of months ago that he and two other directors each purchased stakes of 33% each, and I don’t recall seeing anything in the public domain to suggest he has sold his.

Edited June 5 by Yngwie

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

Just now, Yngwie said:

Why do you think he is no longer a shareholder in the battery company? It was only a couple of months ago that he and two other directors each purchased stakes of 33% each, and I don’t recall seeing anything in the public domain to suggest he has sold his.

He is no longer a Director of ICT Football club. As a private individual now unconnected to the football club I had taken the view he could not now have a significant influence on that company. The planning application to the Council made it clear the Company was owned by the football club and did not have any private individuals on it. With regard to him not being a Director of the company he has a claim on income - if it were ever to materialise - through the floating charge over the Club's assets. By definition this is my perception looking in.

[EvilWhiteStripe]

30 minutes ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

He is no longer a Director of ICT Football club. As a private individual now unconnected to the football club I had taken the view he could not now have a significant influence on that company. The planning application to the Council made it clear the Company was owned by the football club and did not have any private individuals on it. With regard to him not being a Director of the company he has a claim on income - if it were ever to materialise - through the floating charge over the Club's assets. By definition this is my perception looking in.

The Battery Farm was purchased for 250k from the club as a way to inject money into the club

[ymip]

Morrrison has resigned as a director of Inverness Thistle and Caledonian F.C. Limited (the football club) but, as of this morning, appears to still be an active director in the following ICT related companies:

- ICT Battery Storage Limited (with David Cameron)

- Inverness Caledonian Thistle Properties Limited (with David Cameron)

- Inverness Caledonian Thistle Community Development (with various others)

- Inverness Caley Thistle Concert Company Limited [In Liquidation] (sole Director)

It would be nice if one of the remaining directors of Inverness Thistle and Caledonian F.C. Limited would like to shed some light on what exactly is going on and their collective plans for the future of the club.  Over to you gents we're all ears:

Graeme Bennet

David Cameron

Gordon Fyfe

Allan Munro

Panagiotis Thomas

Scott Young

 

Edited June 5 by ymip

[bdu98196]

Unless I mis-understood the battery farm was divested with shared being sold to directors to allow for a £250k cash injection into the club keeping the lights on (so essentially they are now the controlling individuals in ownership). The premise was that they got their money back there's a gesture of goodwill which would return any additional funds to the club. With no legal requirement to do so therefore, based on ownership if the BF goes ahead and the directors pursue sale or otherwise there is the same position where its entirely voluntary what they do with the funds (as owners they can walk away with their percentage each)

Again, I may be wrong. Whether its considered ethically or morally right based on what has been said is open for discussion.

[STFU]

Of all the names on that directors list it's Panos Thomas that worries me most given his history with Watford and Laurence Bassini.

[ymip]

That's also my understanding.  As of 27th March it appears that Ross Morrison, David Cameron and Allan Munro now each have an equal three way control of ICT Battery Storage Limited. However, Cameron and Morrison are the only directors.  

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

The key in this is that Morrison is now just a private individual whose sole role in the club appears to be just to regain some of his investments (through a previously agreed standard security) and to appear in press photographs as the first person, and potentially only person, to buy an ICT FC season ticket for 2024/25 (subject to the Club retaining a licence to play in League 1).

However, given the lack of trust and transparency in recent weeks, nothing can be assumed.

[+DoofersDad]

35 minutes ago, bdu98196 said:

Unless I mis-understood the battery farm was divested with shared being sold to directors to allow for a £250k cash injection into the club keeping the lights on (so essentially they are now the controlling individuals in ownership). The premise was that they got their money back there's a gesture of goodwill which would return any additional funds to the club. With no legal requirement to do so therefore, based on ownership if the BF goes ahead and the directors pursue sale or otherwise there is the same position where its entirely voluntary what they do with the funds (as owners they can walk away with their percentage each)

Again, I may be wrong. Whether its considered ethically or morally right based on what has been said is open for discussion.

I think there is a lot more to it than simply allowing a cash injection into the club.  If the 3 of them could afford the £250k to buy the Battery company, they could simply have put the money directly into the club instead.  That way, the club would still have the battery company and any potential benefits it might subsequently bring.  These benefits could be significant if the planning appeal is successful and a buyer can be found to build and operate the storage system.  The company could also have been sold to a 3rd party prior to the result of the planning appeal.  

However, the club is at risk of administration.  Taking the Battery company out of the club therefore means that if we do go into administration, the administrators cannot sell off the company at a knock down price in order to raise funds to pay creditors.  Should we go into administration and then the planning appeal is successful, any resulting profits would be protected.  The proceeds would, of course, now come to the directors and not the club.  Morrison stated that if the appeal was successful and a buyer was found, then the club would simply invoice the company for payment.  I doubt the directors have any legal obligation to hand over any of the proceeds to the club.  They could, theoretically, pocket all the profit and still claim back from the club the money they have loaned.  I don't for a moment think that they would do anything as dishonourable as that.  

What the directors do have every right to do though, is to use the profits to pay back the loans they have made to the club, handing over any remaining balance.  They may claim back all or some of the loans, or, depending on their personal circumstances and those surrounding the club, they may simply write off their loans and pass all of any profits directly to the club.  

So, in summary, I don't think the sale was to give the club a cash injection, it was to protect potential Battery company profits from the administrator.  That seems to me to be a sensible move.  It does, however, demonstrate that the 3 directors and others at the club must have felt the club was at serious risk of administration even before they could blame the risk on the fans' threatened boycott. It also begs the question of whether the appeal has actually been submitted and, if not, who has the responsibility for submitting it before the deadline.

[bdu98196]

18 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

I doubt the directors have any legal obligation to hand over any of the proceeds to the club.  They could, theoretically, pocket all the profit and still claim back from the club the money they have loaned.  I don't for a moment think that they would do anything as dishonourable as that.  

Thanks for the summation, but its not a bad position though is it from their perspective? Invest £250k (between 3 off) awaiting the sale for £3m+ (although may be significantly less now) earning each major shareholder a (high) 6 figure sum in profits meanwhile still (in the case of SG) being able to claim back loans made to the club. Money is a powerful tool as is greed, while it may be dishonorable its legal and not sure if the protagonists would care about that or otherwise.

 

[+DoofersDad]

4 minutes ago, bdu98196 said:

Thanks for the summation, but its not a bad position though is it from their perspective? Invest £250k (between 3 off) awaiting the sale for £3m+ (although may be significantly less now) earning each major shareholder a (high) 6 figure sum in profits meanwhile still (in the case of SG) being able to claim back loans made to the club. Money is a powerful tool as is greed, while it may be dishonorable its legal and not sure if the protagonists would care about that or otherwise.

 

It's good from their position certainly, but whatever the outcome, the club gets £250k at least into the coffers.  The directors who have bought the Battery Company might have chosen not to put any more money into the club had the club not sold the company.  The club might potentially lose out on some of the bigger profit, but at least it has had a significant cash injection at a time when it is most needed.

[old caley girl]

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

I think there is a lot more to it than simply allowing a cash injection into the club.  If the 3 of them could afford the £250k to buy the Battery company, they could simply have put the money directly into the club instead.  That way, the club would still have the battery company and any potential benefits it might subsequently bring.  These benefits could be significant if the planning appeal is successful and a buyer can be found to build and operate the storage system.  The company could also have been sold to a 3rd party prior to the result of the planning appeal.  

However, the club is at risk of administration.  Taking the Battery company out of the club therefore means that if we do go into administration, the administrators cannot sell off the company at a knock down price in order to raise funds to pay creditors.  Should we go into administration and then the planning appeal is successful, any resulting profits would be protected.  The proceeds would, of course, now come to the directors and not the club.  Morrison stated that if the appeal was successful and a buyer was found, then the club would simply invoice the company for payment.  I doubt the directors have any legal obligation to hand over any of the proceeds to the club.  They could, theoretically, pocket all the profit and still claim back from the club the money they have loaned.  I don't for a moment think that they would do anything as dishonourable as that.  

What the directors do have every right to do though, is to use the profits to pay back the loans they have made to the club, handing over any remaining balance.  They may claim back all or some of the loans, or, depending on their personal circumstances and those surrounding the club, they may simply write off their loans and pass all of any profits directly to the club.  

So, in summary, I don't think the sale was to give the club a cash injection, it was to protect potential Battery company profits from the administrator.  That seems to me to be a sensible move.  It does, however, demonstrate that the 3 directors and others at the club must have felt the club was at serious risk of administration even before they could blame the risk on the fans' threatened boycott. It also begs the question of whether the appeal has actually been submitted and, if not, who has the responsibility for submitting it before the deadline.

The appeal had not been submitted as of this morning. 

[dougal]

From what my source is telling me administration is almost a given now and the announcement is imminent by all accounts. 

I still find it astonishing from what I can see anyway is that large number of fans who seem to welcome going down this route. 

If we enter administration we will be hit with a points deduction at best for two years but also demoted to Division2. 
At worst we could be applying for the Highland league or if that failed the North Caledonian League. 

The silence from the so called guardians tells its own story. 

Im not convinced there is a future for ICT under the present guise. 
This may well be a turning point in Inverness Football history it’s maybe a tad late to build that Hotel and petrol pumps down the Longman with Fiona Larg
 

Dougal
 

 

 

Edited June 5 by dougal

[+DoofersDad]

23 minutes ago, old caley girl said:

The appeal had not been submitted as of this morning. 

Ross Morrison has been speaking recently as though the appeal is in.  Maybe he has been assured that it is when the reality is that it isn't!  That wouldn't surprise me.  Perhaps the Supporters Trust could seek confirmation through the SLO?  It would be catastrophic if we missed out on income from this as a result of yet another administrative failure.

[+snorbens_caleyman]

15 minutes ago, dougal said:

if we enter administration we will be hit with a points deduction at best for two years but also demoted to Division2.

The demotion is a possibility, not a given.

Edited June 5 by snorbens_caleyman

[bdu98196]

Demotion is not the precedent

[bdu98196]

38 minutes ago, dougal said:

From what my source is telling me

[Jack Waddington]

Potential to be punted all the way down to the North Caley if our SPFL licence gets revoked and the HFL refuse to give us a licence. Gearing up for lunchtime kickoffs at Kirkwall Grammar School

[ictchris]

If we don't have signed off accounts then we can't get a license to play in the league, so I understand.

Lots of press people (Scott Burns, Kheredine Idessane) posting that a statement is imminent and it's bad news.  I'd guess either admnistration, going part-time, loads of redundancies or other misery.

[ictchris]

The other point about administration is that the administrators are not there to ensure that we can continue and be a good team or get a community focused club back.  They are there to secure money for the creditors and if that means liquidating the business and selling all the assets, that's what they do.  You also need someone to take the club out of administration - do we have that?

[ymip]

The North Caley comments from the Courier are absolutely ridiculous. The currant buns liquidated, stiffed their face painter and ended up in League Two. Our debts appear to be largely to directors so I struggle to see how the SPFL can do us for anything more than the regular 15 points. Keep the heid mun!

[EvilWhiteStripe]

At least we will always have this

[old caley girl]

59 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Ross Morrison has been speaking recently as though the appeal is in.  Maybe he has been assured that it is when the reality is that it isn't!  That wouldn't surprise me.  Perhaps the Supporters Trust could seek confirmation through the SLO?  It would be catastrophic if we missed out on income from this as a result of yet another administrative failure.

You can go onto the portal and look Peter. It's not there.