Admin by Oct 16th - It's here now!

[big cherly]

3 hours ago, STFU said:

Booing or expressing displeasure at a player/manager/officials ability is not abuse and painting it as such is just another example of how matchdays (not just ours) are being continually sterilised.

We have had incidents in the past where those shouts have crossed the line and become threatening or involved family members, sexuality, race etc and that's when it becomes abuse and unacceptable. I've not personally heard anything like that aimed at either DF or CF.

Quite understand, the ‘I don’t hate Ferguson’ twice was just for effect!! 

Edited October 20, 2024 by big cherly

[Eagle4Caley]

On 10/20/2024 at 10:03 AM, bishbashbosh said:

What about the goalkeeper getting lobbed from near the half way line at Hamilton and spilling a shot he should have easily dealt with that killed the tie stone dead at home.

 

Blimey I hadn't realised that, ....that's what happened away to Dundee United in March....Ridgers was so far out of his goal [the United player got a lucky deflection to get the ball but was still an accurate shot to hit the open goal], Ridgers clearly not learning from that mistake

[ictchris]

If he's been working without pay then he'll join teh queue of creditors - he'll be quite high up it as a football creditor.  I wouldn't start joining hands and singing Kumbya for the guy just yet.

Personally, I think he's been a terrible manager.  Even if you leave aside the on-pitch issues, he was completely silent as the club was in turmoil in teh summer, saying nothing about the Kelty move, he seems to have done nothing about the situation with Aaron Doran for example.  He's not been a leader, he's defeatist and has a bad attitude.  It's the opposite of what we thought we'd get from employing him.

Does anyone know if we are actually confirming going into admin or are we just leaving it?  Has the laptop at the stadium been sold to raise money to pay off Scott Gardiner?

[Robert]

From the Fans Meeting, given the absence of an update today, we must be in administration. We were told the administrator would be here today or tomorrow, with a Press Conference likely to take place on Wednesday. There are presumably some formalities to be carried out before it can be formally confirmed.

Copied from the Fans Meeting thread:

To highlight one of the key issues, as has been mentioned in the Administration Thread Scott Young confirmed that the formal process for entering administration has started. Unless a formal offer is received before the administration papers are accepted by the Court (expected to be around 1000 on Monday) then the Administrator will be brought in, triggering the 15 point penalty. A Press Conference is likely to be held by the Administrator on Wednesday.

[ictchris]

Another question I had - why are our current chairman and our former chairman both telling the media that the club has never been profitable, or has only been profitable once in the last twenty years?  This is proveably untrue - the club has made profits in 2006, 2007, 2013, 2014 and 2015.  Those are only the years that I can find figures for.  In addition, during those years that we made losses we didn't have any debt and didn't rely on bailouts.

In addition to this, when we were relegated in 2009, we 'wrote off' a year to try and get back into the top flight, gave out one year deals so if we didn't go up we would be able to rebudget.

[Scotty]

2 minutes ago, ictchris said:

This is proveably untrue - the club has made profits in 2006, 2007, 2013, 2014 and 2015.  Those are only the years that I can find figures for.  In addition, during those years that we made losses we didn't have any debt and didn't rely on bailouts.

In addition to this, when we were relegated in 2009, we 'wrote off' a year to try and get back into the top flight, gave out one year deals so if we didn't go up we would be able to rebudget.

Perhaps some people prefer to forget that through that period of time there was actually a system and process in place where successive chairmen stuck to the plan of fiscal responsibility that was initially laid down by Tulloch/DFS when we almost went down the path we are going down now in 1999/2000.  

[Robert]

Scott Young was interviewed on STV tonight. No offer was received so the administration process is proceeding.

George Moodie from the Supporters Trust was also interviewed. 

[CaleyCiuin]

48 minutes ago, ictchris said:

Another question I had - why are our current chairman and our former chairman both telling the media that the club has never been profitable, or has only been profitable once in the last twenty years?  This is proveably untrue - the club has made profits in 2006, 2007, 2013, 2014 and 2015.  Those are only the years that I can find figures for.  In addition, during those years that we made losses we didn't have any debt and didn't rely on bailouts.

In addition to this, when we were relegated in 2009, we 'wrote off' a year to try and get back into the top flight, gave out one year deals so if we didn't go up we would be able to rebudget.

The current Chairman and what’s left of the current board are part of the problem. They may be nice enough people, but they are absolutely out of their depth in terms oor running a football club. That’s why the former CEO could go about unchecked.

[+Fraz]

14 minutes ago, CaleyCiuin said:

The current Chairman and what’s left of the current board are part of the problem. They may be nice enough people, but they are absolutely out of their depth in terms oor running a football club. That’s why the former CEO could go about unchecked.

I agree with you regarding the board with the exception of Scott Young. He's only been on the board a year or so and has been the only one making the effort to try and be transparent and speak with fans starting with the fans meetings at the Innes Bar. He's been the only one who hasn't hidden away and he's probably the least 'business man' in the group.  

Dissapointed with Grassa as I'd thought he'd have more sense than to let things get away like this and Fyfe is, with all due respect an empty chair and contributes zero.

I won't articulate my thoughts on the members who have slinked away before facing any scrutiny. They are contemptible. 

[CaleyCiuin]

Fair enough with Scot Young, he does seem to care about the Club. I would standby the statement that he is out of his depth in a football Club sense. In the year or so he has been in his various positions, with his fresh eyes he had the perfect opportunity to raise any issues with the CEO or other board members. I understand he hasn’t put any money into the club as other directors have,  it now seems he is calling the shots in terms of admin etc. Is he really the best person to be taking the club forward. Nice guy, but SLO at most. 

Edited October 21, 2024 by CaleyCiuin

[+old caley girl]

4 minutes ago, CaleyCiuin said:

Fair enough with Scot Young, he does seem to care about the Club. I would standby the statement that he is out of his depth in a football Club sense. In the year or so he has been in his various positions, with his fresh eyes he had the perfect opportunity to raise any issues with the CEO or other board members. I understand he hasn’t put any money into the club as other directors have,  it now seems he is calling the shots in terms of admin etc. Is he really the best person to be taking the club forward. Nice guy, but SLO at most. 

I doubt he had any wish to be in this position and I commend him for sticking with it whilst others ran to the hills. A real honourable person in my eyes 

[+Fraz]

TBH the SLO shouldn't be a board member at all. They should be independent in that regard, most clubs don't operate that way. 

I've no clue if he was a dissenting voice the past year or not. It would be very interesting to see the minutes of the board meetings these past years but I wouldn't be surprised if they're never properly recorded as we don't seem to operate in a professional manner. 

I will say that he's stepped up at the most challenging time in the club history when other 'more experienced businessesmen' have slithered away. That says a lot to me. 

[CaleyCiuin]

23 minutes ago, old caley girl said:

I doubt he had any wish to be in this position and I commend him for sticking with it whilst others ran to the hills. A real honourable person in my eyes 

He ( like others) remained silent during the summer when players and staff were being treated so badly. Not much honour in that.

[STFU]

Scott Young may be least to blame of the directors but I don't think he was a dissenting voice given the fact it was him who signed both the charges on behalf if the board giving Ross Morrison pretty much full claim on all the club assets.

Nice guy but it would seem equally gullible.

[CaleyCiuin]

25 minutes ago, Fraz said:

TBH the SLO shouldn't be a board member at all. They should be independent in that regard, most clubs don't operate that way. 

I've no clue if he was a dissenting voice the past year or not. It would be very interesting to see the minutes of the board meetings these past years but I wouldn't be surprised if they're never properly recorded as we don't seem to operate in a professional manner. 

I will say that he's stepped up at the most challenging time in the club history when other 'more experienced businessesmen' have slithered away. That says a lot to me. 

I agree the SLO shouldn’t be a board member or interim Chairman, yes he did step into the role advised I understand by Scot Gardiner who could control the reply/ response from the club. He should relinquish the role of SLO while he remains in his current position, or vice versa.

Edited October 21, 2024 by CaleyCiuin

[+old caley girl]

24 minutes ago, CaleyCiuin said:

I agree the SLO shouldn’t be a board member or interim Chairman, yes he did step into the role advised I understand by Scot Gardiner who could control the reply/ response from the club. He should relinquish the role of SLO while he remains in his current position, or vice versa.

I would imagine it's on the cards? I don't have a problem with having a Director of fans and a proper SLO but tbh that's the least of our problems at moment sadly 

[Scotty]

I know that SY has kept a relationship going with fans through the ST when others clammed up or publicly called out our fans the way our former CEO did. Would like to think he also dissented at a board level but no idea if that's the case or not - and as pointed out, we likely never will. Time will tell, but yes, he at least is stepping up and trying to keep things together. 

The others who are left, as far as I can see, have really said nothing, and in the case of Grassa, that really disappoints me. As a former player and Director of Football he should have been front and centre when relegation happened and when our players heard nothing from manager, CEO or any other directors. He should have been privately or publicly screaming from the rooftops that the players deserved better than that. As a local boy, I would also have expected to hear more from him about keeping the club alive and doing everything we can to avoiud, or as seems the case now, manage our way through, administration. 

As for those who have slunk off ... no comment needed.  

 

 

[Charles Bannerman]

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

I know that SY has kept a relationship going with fans through the ST when others clammed up or publicly called out our fans the way our former CEO did. Would like to think he also dissented at a board level but no idea if that's the case or not - and as pointed out, we likely never will. Time will tell, but yes, he at least is stepping up and trying to keep things together. 

The others who are left, as far as I can see, have really said nothing, and in the case of Grassa, that really disappoints me. As a former player and Director of Football he should have been front and centre when relegation happened and when our players heard nothing from manager, CEO or any other directors. He should have been privately or publicly screaming from the rooftops that the players deserved better than that. As a local boy, I would also have expected to hear more from him about keeping the club alive and doing everything we can to avoiud, or as seems the case now, manage our way through, administration. 

As for those who have slunk off ... no comment needed.  

 

 

The abiding mystery for me is how the total inertia of the board + CEO continued/ was allowed to continue for so long - over a period of years - when it was crystal clear to all that the entire scenario was steadily going down the toilet. It would be interesting to establish just how long Ross Morrison and Gardiner go back as an “item”, because to me, that was the essential “power couple” in a scenario where the Chairman should have been closely supervising the CEO, but it appears that the converse may well have been the case. The Gardiner - Morrison “axis”, controlled by the former rather than the latter, then appears to have been able to sideline the rest of the board and the amount of money Morrison was putting in to cover losses very possibly also gave him extra clout in relation to the other board members.

We therefore have to ask just how accountable the CEO was to his nominal bosses, as the various faux pas that Alan Savage has since uncovered mounted up and expenditure reached incomprehensible levels.

The Administrator’s principal task is to try to save the company as a going concern for the future, but I also wonder to what extent he will need to make a deep and critical appraisal of exactly how that company got into the state it did? That, I believe, would be revealing in the extreme.

[CaleyCiuin]

8 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The abiding mystery for me is how the total inertia of the board + CEO continued/ was allowed to continue for so long - over a period of years - when it was crystal clear to all that the entire scenario was steadily going down the toilet. It would be interesting to establish just how long Ross Morrison and Gardiner go back as an “item”, because to me, that was the essential “power couple” in a scenario where the Chairman should have been closely supervising the CEO, but it appears that the converse may well have been the case. The Gardiner - Morrison “axis”, controlled by the former rather than the latter, then appears to have been able to sideline the rest of the board and the amount of money Morrison was putting in to cover losses very possibly also gave him extra clout in relation to the other board members.

We therefore have to ask just how accountable the CEO was to his nominal bosses, as the various faux pas that Alan Savage has since uncovered mounted up and expenditure reached incomprehensible levels.

The Administrator’s principal task is to try to save the company as a going concern for the future, but I also wonder to what extent he will need to make a deep and critical appraisal of exactly how that company got into the state it did? That, I believe, would be revealing in the extreme.

Agree with your points above. The entire board are culpable for the Morrison - Gardiner running of the club without transparency or accountability. Who appointed the remainder to their board position? What’s the point of the board if they are not going to conduct their oversight and guidance to the running and particularly the financial discipline of the club. I hope they all go and AS brings in some competent individuals!

[+Fraz]

8 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The abiding mystery for me is how the total inertia of the board + CEO continued/ was allowed to continue for so long - over a period of years - when it was crystal clear to all that the entire scenario was steadily going down the toilet. It would be interesting to establish just how long Ross Morrison and Gardiner go back as an “item”, because to me, that was the essential “power couple” in a scenario where the Chairman should have been closely supervising the CEO, but it appears that the converse may well have been the case. The Gardiner - Morrison “axis”, controlled by the former rather than the latter, then appears to have been able to sideline the rest of the board and the amount of money Morrison was putting in to cover losses very possibly also gave him extra clout in relation to the other board members.

We therefore have to ask just how accountable the CEO was to his nominal bosses, as the various faux pas that Alan Savage has since uncovered mounted up and expenditure reached incomprehensible levels.

The Administrator’s principal task is to try to save the company as a going concern for the future, but I also wonder to what extent he will need to make a deep and critical appraisal of exactly how that company got into the state it did? That, I believe, would be revealing in the extreme.

It was clear to me from the Pixalot farce that Gardiner wasn't capable of being the CEO and was either negligent or just incompetent. His comments that 'it wasn't that bad' just reeked of ignorance or narcissism. I won't reel through his long list of failure (I've done that previously). 

What I found astounding was when I asked Morrison at a fans Q&A at the Caley Club about Gardiner's performance and horrendous attitude to fans and The Supporters Trust he seemed shocked that I even could suggest such a thing. This was compounded by his comments on the TWS before he resigned and he said just last week incredibly that Gardiner his been 'villified'. I can only surmise that either Gardiner has the most silver tounge in the land, Morrison and Gardiner have a relationship much deeper than simply professional or that Morrison is one of the most willfully ignorant or gullible people on the planet. There still need to be answers as to why there was ZERO accountability or oversight for years. What CEO gets to write their own contract!? 

The whole situation is frankly incredible. I wouldn't trust Gardiner to run a kids birthday party. 

[+snorbens_caleyman]

8 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The Administrator’s principal task is to try to save the company as a going concern for the future, but I also wonder to what extent he will need to make a deep and critical appraisal of exactly how that company got into the state it did? That, I believe, would be revealing in the extreme.

I would have hoped that Alan Savage would be able to give the Administrator chapter & verse on this, following his "forensic audit".  Probably not the Administrator's concern, though.

I suspect that we will hear nothing more of this in the future, nor about the apparent negligence of the rest of the Board for the past few years.  I suspect that there will be nothing that would stand up in a court of law, and that any detailed public revelations could well lead to defamation claims, as Gardiner, for example, has already threatened.

Nothing to see here, move along.... 

Edited October 22, 2024 by snorbens_caleyman
spelling

[bdu98196]

3 minutes ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

I suspect that we will hear nothing more of this in the future, nor about the apparent negligence of the rest of the Board for the past few years.

You may be right and given some of what I'm reading there will be those that look back with sympathy for some of the complicit individuals all because the 'bug bad man' (SG) did it all. Scapegoating at its finest.

[+The Fly]

12 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The Administrator’s principal task is to try to save the company as a going concern for the future, but I also wonder to what extent he will need to make a deep and critical appraisal of exactly how that company got into the state it did? That, I believe, would be revealing in the extreme.

I believe an Insolvency practitioner (the Administrator in our case) has to assess the history of the business and conduct of all the directors (or people who acted as if they were directors) of the company and then report to the government Insolvency Service within six months of their appointment. These reports are confidential, but I think the information contained in them is the primary source of evidence for any subsequent attempt to disqualify a person from being a company director in the future.

Edited October 22, 2024 by The Fly
Clarification of IP meaning

[Yngwie]

26 minutes ago, The Fly said:

I believe an Insolvency practitioner (the Administrator in our case) has to assess the history of the business and conduct of all the directors (or people who acted as if they were directors) of the company and then report to the government Insolvency Service within six months of their appointment. These reports are confidential, but I think the information contained in them is the primary source of evidence for any subsequent attempt to disqualify a person from being a company director in the future.

Directors need to have done really bad stuff, eg clearly fraudulent and/or illegal, to get an adverse report. Being weak or incompetent isn’t enough for issues to be raised.

[Scotty]

4 hours ago, Fraz said:

It was clear to me from the Pixalot farce that Gardiner wasn't capable of being the CEO and was either negligent or just incompetent. His comments that 'it wasn't that bad' just reeked of ignorance or narcissism. I won't reel through his long list of failure (I've done that previously). 

That was one of the first outward/public warning signs for me. We had a great media team, and Andy was doing a stellar job on the camera work. Equipment and technology were in place, and we had - I think - Ross Tokely and other guest commentators coming on some weeks so it was of interest to fans outside Inverness and certainly could have developed and matured way better than what replaced it. I had the opportunity to be one of the guinea pigs for a few games early on and it was great, but all that got pushed to the side and privately I was told at the time it was "...because it was not his idea". I don't recall who told me that, but it was a red flag for me. 

For me another was in 2019, not long after he started, and before the pandemic hit, that he and Ross Morrison asked for money generating ideas from the fans. I made a speculative call and email and got a bite I never expected offering assistance to the club in a manner 'to be discussed'. I passed it on to the chairman who said he would get the CEO to make the call. That call was never made despite the chairman's (initial) protestations to the contrary on the podcast that he backtracked on when Sandy pressed him on it. That ended it for me with the CEO as the guy over here was really interested and all that had to be done to initiate things was to dial 13 digits on a phone to initiate a conversation and see where it went. 

There are plenty of other instances and gossip about various aspects of his reign at the club and I am sure there are hundreds more I haven't heard about, but I will be circumspect on that front for now.  

 

4 hours ago, Fraz said:

What I found astounding was when I asked Morrison at a fans Q&A at the Caley Club about Gardiner's performance and horrendous attitude to fans and The Supporters Trust he seemed shocked that I even could suggest such a thing. This was compounded by his comments on the TWS before he resigned and he said just last week incredibly that Gardiner his been 'villified'. I can only surmise that either Gardiner has the most silver tounge in the land, Morrison and Gardiner have a relationship much deeper than simply professional or that Morrison is one of the most willfully ignorant or gullible people on the planet. There still need to be answers as to why there was ZERO accountability or oversight for years. What CEO gets to write their own contract!? 

The whole situation is frankly incredible. I wouldn't trust Gardiner to run a kids birthday party. 

Yeah, recent comments didn't ring true to me. First you had him say he was 'the best i could find' which is not exactly a ringing endorsement, then you had him pegged as being vilified. I never met the man (SG), I never want to meet the man, and I definitely have my own opinion about him where there is nothing positive to say, but his alleged treatment of staff, players and fans leaves no room for anyone to make an accusation of vilification on his behalf.  

However, I will say the rot did not start with Gardiner, it started before him, with Rae and Crook in my opinion. That is often overlooked in recent conversations, primarily I think because SG was so good at making people dislike him.