Investment

[Scotty]

47 minutes ago, Robert said:

The jury is out for me until we know a lot more than we currently do about his plans, ideas, motivation etc.

47 minutes ago, Robert said:

I do believe Gardiner will exit, but maybe not until the deal is concluded. The Trust is right to highlight that ongoing issue in its statement.

47 minutes ago, Robert said:

There remain an awful lot of questions but I will give him the benefit of the doubt until things are clearer.

Yes, jury out for me too although I am coming from a position far further down the negative scale. 

The CEO has to be held to his resignation, that is non-negotiable for me as a (tiny) shareholder. 

A lot of questions and I am running low on benefit of doubt where our board are concerned. 

 

17 minutes ago, IBM said:

I am usually a positive person but looking at what we know at the moment I think the board have been led up the garden path but will be delighted if there is "investment" going to come into the club.  We might get more information from the board in the autumn 

If we hadn't reached for a multitude of other 'Hail-Mary' solutions over the last few years, I might have a more open mind, but after pixellot, concert, park-and-ride, and the battery farm, the monorail video from the Simpsons is all i can see. Please prove me wrong! 

[CaleyCanary]

31 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

I think that is the only sensible position to take at this stage.

Interesting though that so many of our fans have, without any of the necessary information, already concluded very negatively. 

Sadly I’m one of them Yngwie but do agree with you and Robert.

I have no depth of knowledge in the field so it’s mostly just perception. From what I’ve been able to gather I struggle to see that in depth due diligence would find this company to be ‘fit and proper’.

At the moment it all seems very dodgy with Gardiner’s fingerprints all over it. I hope for the best but fear for the worst…

[Charles Bannerman]

39 minutes ago, Robert said:

My thinking was that given the shares have no value in the “real world” and that many were issued in return for cash infusions, some may see getting something below the theoretical value is better than retaining shares that realistically will never give a return.

Time will tell!

But remember that cash spent in purchasing existing shares doesn’t benefit the club, it just makes it cheaper for 77 to acquire a majority.

Here’s an example. As already said, with 4M shares issued and the ST having a fixed 10% voting strength, it would take £5M to acquire a 50% voting share. But, for the sake of argument and illustration, let’s say that 77 persuade current holders to part with 800,000 shares at just 50p each (and with that their voting power). This leaves just 3.2M of the 4M in other people’s hands so 77 now have to acquire 4M to get 50%. But they now already have 800,000 so they just have to buy another 3.2M for £3.2M. Then add the £400K that they paid for that 800,000 and you get a total cost that’s down from £5M to £3.6M, but only £3.2M of that would be new money for the club. If a relative devaluation of the voting power of the existing shares could also be brought about, that could make it less costly still. General Meeting of shareholders incoming? (The AGM is already three weeks overdue and counting.)

Edited July 26 by Charles Bannerman

[Robert]

9 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

But remember that cash spent in purchasing existing shares doesn’t benefit the club, it just makes it cheaper for 77 to acquire a majority.

Here’s an example. As already said, with 4M shares issued and the ST having a fixed 10% voting strength, it would take £5M to acquire a 50% voting share. But, for the sake of argument and illustration, let’s say that 77 persuade current holders to part with 800,000 shares at just 50p each (and with that their voting power). This leaves just 3.2M of the 4M in other people’s hands so 77 now have to acquire 4M to get 50%. But they now already have 800,000 so they just have to buy another 3.2M for £3.2M. Then add the £400K that they paid for that 800,000 and you get a total cost that’s down from £5M to £3.6M, but only £3.2M of that would be new money for the club. If a relative devaluation of the voting power of the existing shares could also be brought about, that could make it less costly still. General Meeting of shareholders incoming? (The AGM is already three weeks overdue and counting.)

Do you know how many shares are available in the club that aren’t owned by anyone?

[Charles Bannerman]

Three other questions.

Firstly if, as has emerged today, 77 is a one man band - a company with a single director - what would he want to do about a board that he can be confident would protect his investment?

Secondly, 77 appears to be a tiny company that has dealt in five figure sums for its entire three year existence and has net liabilities. So where is the money going to come from in order to fund Caley Thistle? Is there any significance to this company having become the Borrower in a Charge that was created on 28th June, where the Lender is a Channel Islands-based finance company?

And thirdly, if this deal went through and then the club went really badly wrong, could there be any danger of the remaining 69 years of the lease on the stadium site being asset stripped and sold lucratively by 77 to a buyer such as a large retail company?

[Charles Bannerman]

16 minutes ago, Robert said:

Do you know how many shares are available in the club that aren’t owned by anyone?

The figure of 2 million vaguely sticks in my head, and that also seems to square with something CaleyD said in an earlier post. I’d guess there may be a fair chance that shareholder approval may be required to create more if this deal is to become reality.

[IBM]

23 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Three other questions.

Firstly if, as has emerged today, 77 is a one man band - a company with a single director - what would he want to do about a board that he can be confident would protect his investment?

Secondly, 77 appears to be a tiny company that has dealt in five figure sums for its entire three year existence and has net liabilities. So where is the money going to come from in order to fund Caley Thistle? Is there any significance to this company having become the Borrower in a Charge that was created on 28th June, where the Lender is a Channel Islands-based finance company?

And thirdly, if this deal went through and then the club went really badly wrong, could there be any danger of the remaining 69 years of the lease on the stadium site being asset stripped and sold lucratively by 77 to a buyer such as a large retail company?

77 is a one man band and I think we might have been better going with Leo Sayer 

I might be wrong but when Tullochs gifted the stands to the club when Graeme Rae was chairman (someone put the link earlier in this thread) my understanding is that it was the stands including the main stand but they still hold the option on the remainder of the 99 year lease which include car parks and surrounding area.  I think this was a clever move by Tullochs which might prevent something like this happening but who knows  we are surrounded by wheelers and dealers and all we want is to support our club and watch a good game of football.

[IcyT]

Oh dear. Is that it?! One-man band with no substance per Companies House, and a load of trendy speak with no substance on their website. 

[Satan]

 

Determined isnt he?

4th time lucky

[PullMyFinger]

2 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Three other questions.

Firstly if, as has emerged today, 77 is a one man band - a company with a single director - what would he want to do about a board that he can be confident would protect his investment?

Secondly, 77 appears to be a tiny company that has dealt in five figure sums for its entire three year existence and has net liabilities. So where is the money going to come from in order to fund Caley Thistle? Is there any significance to this company having become the Borrower in a Charge that was created on 28th June, where the Lender is a Channel Islands-based finance company?

And thirdly, if this deal went through and then the club went really badly wrong, could there be any danger of the remaining 69 years of the lease on the stadium site being asset stripped and sold lucratively by 77 to a buyer such as a large retail company?

Guy seems like the real deal, recently sold a development company to the EU.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ketanmakwana?trk=blended-typeahead

[PullMyFinger]

4 hours ago, big cherly said:

We Scot’s ain’t great at history or learning from past mistakes. Hope I’m wrong but Mr Murray’s sale of rangers was a dark route taken for that club and plunged it deeper in the s##t that took a lot time to recover and a pile of money and agony. I add how close Celtic were before Macain stepped in and the usual benign bigotry starts here. 
Fingers & toes crossed we teuchters aren’t the mugs taken for granted and do proper checks (time will tell)!
It’s a case of a leap into the unknown for me and tread (very ) carefully and don’t get taken in for slick sweet city slicker talk!! 
bc 

But Craig White had wealth off the scale!

[+Northern_jaggie]

Maybe someone from the ST should approach 77 ventures using the “work with us” button on their website…

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

On the 10th May 2024 in their latest confirmation statement to Companies House Seventy7Ventures advised 'The company confirms that its intended future activities are lawful.'  

On the face of it Ketan was tipped off about an opportunity in Inverness on about 1 June 2024 by Paul Nelson (i.e. 8 weeks ago).  Morrison had just resigned, Kelty remained the controversial solution.  Nothing illegal about that but did the Board authorise contact with him via a third party? Was it Gardiner or Morrison? Who in the club knew Paul Nelson?

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7218887206441005057/  Nice picture of a Highland Cow.

Will be interesting to see how long it will take for the legal completion of the deal when the club seems to need liquid funds.

 

[Yngwie]

Courier article has various quotes from Makwana regarding his involvement with and plans for Hayes and Yeading. Most of it sounds good, community building and fan engagement etc, although it also comes across that his knowledge of running a football club stems from binge watching the Wrexham thing on Netflix.

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/meet-the-new-owner-of-caley-thistle-ketan-makwana-who-has-se-356646/

[Yngwie]

10 minutes ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

but did the Board authorise contact with him via a third party? Was it Gardiner or Morrison? Who in the club knew Paul Nelson?

I doubt any of our Board would know where to start, whereas our CEO is more likely to have the knowledge and contacts to be able to tap into the market of people who facilitate football investments.

[STFU]

4 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

I doubt any of our Board would know where to start, whereas our CEO is more likely to have the knowledge and contacts to be able to tap into the market of people who facilitate football investments.

You may want to google Panos Thomas and his involvement with Watford.

[Charles Bannerman]

10 hours ago, IBM said:

77 is a one man band and I think we might have been better going with Leo Sayer 

I might be wrong but when Tullochs gifted the stands to the club when Graeme Rae was chairman (someone put the link earlier in this thread) my understanding is that it was the stands including the main stand but they still hold the option on the remainder of the 99 year lease which include car parks and surrounding area.  I think this was a clever move by Tullochs which might prevent something like this happening but who knows  we are surrounded by wheelers and dealers and all we want is to support our club and watch a good game of football.

Which raises another question. What did Mr Makanwa mean precisely when he was quoted yesterday as saying “WE at Seventy7….”?

[BroadstoneParkJag]

Have you seen Makwana's latest LinkedIn post? 

[BroadstoneParkJag]

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ketanmakwana_inverness-ct-accept-deal-for-new-majority-activity-7222873363176693761-tMLQ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android

 

This is going to be a disaster. 

[Yngwie]

4 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Which raises another question. What did Mr Makanwa mean precisely when he was quoted yesterday as saying “WE at Seventy7….”?

[Yngwie]

8 minutes ago, BroadstoneParkJag said:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ketanmakwana_inverness-ct-accept-deal-for-new-majority-activity-7222873363176693761-tMLQ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android

Oops, he tagged Central Highlands Regional Council (which is in Australia)!

Trying to figure out why he would thank the council anyway for putting trust in him, it implies he’s had to liaise with them on something?

[Charles Bannerman]

7 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

I was thinking more about people actively involved in running the company which has only ever had two directors - Mr Jacobsen who resigned last September and Mr Makwana who remains as the sole director of a company which doesn’t appear to be on a position to have any employees.

[Yngwie]

48 minutes ago, STFU said:

You may want to google Panos Thomas and his involvement with Watford.

He was just the stooge in that, wasn’t he?

Anyway, latest info from Makwana makes it sound like Nelson was already monitoring the UK football market for opportunities and the press coverage of our demise put ICT on his radar.

No idea what John Colquhoun does these days but interesting that he was used as a source of info on the club. I’d imagine he could readily pick up the phone to Robbo if he wanted a well informed view of the state of the club?

[Yngwie]

5 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I was thinking more about people actively involved in running the company which has only ever had two directors - Mr Jacobsen who resigned last September and Mr Makwana who remains as the sole director of a company which doesn’t appear to be on a position to have any employees.

People can be consultants rather than employees. But an investment/consultancy/facilitation business like this doesn’t really need many people.

[+Northern_jaggie]

Liaising with the council, it must be something to do with lease assignation. How could it be anything else