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

[+old caley girl]

Courier reporting administrator has released statement saying agreement has been reached with creditors. No more detail know than that 

[STFU]

That will be creditors agreeing with what's in the proposal document as opposed to any agreement on a settlement I would think.

[big cherly]

On 1/6/2025 at 5:14 PM, Charles Bannerman said:

I don’t think the Bught is even a starter here, and for one or two reasons, Cherly.

Back in 1993, INE commissioned a study which eventually led to the choice of the current stadium site, but the Bught never even figured. Agreed, the West Link has appeared since then which might appear to improve access to close to the Bught, but in terms of immediate access, the area is already a traffic nightmare, made worse by everyone trying to pile out on to Glenurquhart Road because you can no longer drive north along the riverside because of that £2.5M cycleway that nobody uses.

The other big problem with the Bught is that the land is all already committed to other purposes and - to be blunt - people aren’t going to be prepared to be dislodged simply to accommodate a football club that’s failed to run itself properly. The Bught Stadium itself would be a complete no-no since it is currently undergoing a multi-million pound upgrade as a national centre for shinty.

You mentioned sharing with the rugby club or the athletics track. Both of these are HighLife Highland facilities so any football club would simply be tenants and there would probably difficulties with advertising signage. But, more fundamentally, the rugby club doesn’t even have a stand while, although the running track has a small one, spectator areas are quite limited. Also, there is no running water at the track past the sports centre which is the only location of toilets and, with field event areas on the infield, the Queens Park isn’t actually big enough to accommodate a football pitch. And then there’s the issue that Highland RFC and Inverness Harriers both have their own fixture lists which they wouldn’t be prepared or indeed able to have disrupted, and the same goes for both clubs’ weekly training sessions which would clash with midweek football fixtures.

What the 1993 report showed was that Inverness wasn’t, even then, well provided with potential sites for a football stadium so - apart from possible greenfield areas outwith the city boundary - I don’t see that having become any better over the last 30 years of development.

Thanks Charlie, Didn’t know the history of the Bught and knew there would be insurmountable hurdles. The thrust of my point (like you and others on CTO), is to not lie down and simply accept what RM and his cohorts intend without a challenge either directly or indirectly. 
BDO will do the legal route. I want to influence where we can the groups, individuals and other interested parties that may feel unease and express this angst to RM. 
The Highland Council does have a direct interest on what happens within the stadium and surrounding area. I would like to hear what the Council thoughts are on the matter. Are they indifferent on the direction the club is being pushed? 
bc

[+old caley girl]

1 hour ago, STFU said:

That will be creditors agreeing with what's in the proposal document as opposed to any agreement on a settlement I would think.

Yes article now deleted. 

[RiG]

Unlike the Courier to jump the gun but I guess they need those clicks.

Edited January 8 by RiG

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

Courier misreading Companies House post. 

[STFU]

1 hour ago, big cherly said:

Thanks Charlie, Didn’t know the history of the Bught and knew there would be insurmountable hurdles. The thrust of my point (like you and others on CTO), is to not lie down and simply accept what RM and his cohorts intend without a challenge either directly or indirectly. 
BDO will do the legal route. I want to influence where we can the groups, individuals and other interested parties that may feel unease and express this angst to RM. 
The Highland Council does have a direct interest on what happens within the stadium and surrounding area. I would like to hear what the Council thoughts are on the matter. Are they indifferent on the direction the club is being pushed? 
bc

So long as rent is being paid and there is no breach on the lease agreement then I don't see why Highland Council would look to get involved.

[STFU]

18 minutes ago, RiG said:

Unlike the Courier to jump the gun but I guess they need those clicks.

They're notorious for inaccurate and misleading headlines. Wannabe tabloid these days.

[big cherly]

6 hours ago, STFU said:

So long as rent is being paid and there is no breach on the lease agreement then I don't see why Highland Council would look to get involved.

Simplistically you can argue that is the case. 
It nevertheless dismisses any responsibility of duty of care or due diligence by the council to consider the effects of one of its sub tenants (ICTFC) folding and going into liquidation. Whilst ICTP may still provide the rent, their remains the issue of the stadium upkeep and security costs which will have to picked up by the council (they own the stadium). Another concern were this to happen is the likelihood of any development of the area would be deferred some years I expect. 

This stance also goes against THC common good fund principles Ie ‘Common Good Funds are made up of assets including buildings, land …. , are ‘held by the Council principally for the benefit of the local community’.

If what it appears from an earlier posting it maybe a moot point, insofar it appears their will be a statement by BDO mid Jan. Hopefully their is some positive signs of an agreement or a road map to achieve that between RM/main stakeholders and the long suffering retail suppliers.
bc 

ps - I hasten to add THC would like to avoid anything to do with ICTFC right now giving the complete pigs-ear they made of dealing with the battery farm. 

Edited January 8 by big cherly

[IBM]

Come on big cherry do you really expect the Council to consider duty of care and due diligence on the lease of our ground and car parks when they failed to provide the service to empty our bins over the festive season a simple task  

[bishbashbosh]

11 hours ago, IBM said:

Come on big cherry do you really expect the Council to consider duty of care and due diligence on the lease of our ground and car parks when they failed to provide the service to empty our bins over the festive season a simple task  

IBM,

over the bridge in Ross-shire our bins collection is a Wednesday. Over the festive they were picked up on the Saturdays.

you should move over here, crikey you may even watch the county when ICT are away.

now that would be the “”big cherry” on the cake.

ps……. I assume changing big Cherly’s name was predictive text. When I typed it, it came up as Cheryl. 

[big cherly]

1 hour ago, bishbashbosh said:

IBM,

over the bridge in Ross-shire our bins collection is a Wednesday. Over the festive they were picked up on the Saturdays.

you should move over here, crikey you may even watch the county when ICT are away.

now that would be the “”big cherry” on the cake.

ps……. I assume changing big Cherly’s name was predictive text. When I typed it, it came up as Cheryl. 

Found out! Reading this in my cherry patterned dress. Time to quickly move on. 

Edited January 9 by big cherly

[+DoofersDad]

3 hours ago, bishbashbosh said:

over the bridge in Ross-shire our bins collection is a Wednesday. Over the festive they were picked up on the Saturdays.

 

We also live OTB with a Wednesday collection.  Bins still to be emptied nearly 2 weeks after they were supposed to be.

[STFU]

Courier headline incoming...

"ICTFC Face Bleak Future as Bin Collection Consistency Declines"

[Charles Bannerman]

On 1/8/2025 at 12:05 PM, big cherly said:

The thrust of my point (like you and others on CTO), is to not lie down and simply accept what RM and his cohorts intend without a challenge either directly or indirectly. 
BDO will do the legal route. I want to influence where we can the groups, individuals and other interested parties that may feel unease and express this angst to RM. 
The Highland Council does have a direct interest on what happens within the stadium and surrounding area. I would like to hear what the Council thoughts are on the matter. Are they indifferent on the direction the club is being pushed? 
bc

I’m surprised that there was such a furore over this week’s Companies House filing, which has been something of a red herring since it simply seems to be a formal indication of what we pretty well knew anyway - administrators and creditors have an agreement about how to go about trying to come to the real agreement about liabilities. I see the main issues there as follows.

1) The debt - now quantified at £3.8M, although strictly this is the amount claimed rather than definitely owed, because the likes of Gardiner’s £70K are simply claims. This to me falls into two categories.

a) The £1.65M owed to Morrison which I see as distinct because it has a security amounting to the stadium attached to it, and the loan in question was also made under his chairmanship when he was principally responsible for avoiding getting the club into a precarious financial situation. Importantly, the administrator has expressed doubts over the validity of the security, and future ownership of the stadium may hang on this.

b) The rest of the debt where six of over 140 creditors are owed (or are possibly just claiming) £100K or more. It’s worth highlighting here the £410,000 owed to David Cameron, since this isn’t his only role in this wrangle (see below). Presumably a CVA will be sought, but if this can’t be achieved then liquidation perhaps becomes more likely. In this event, those creditors who played a role in allowing such incredible debts to accumulate probably need to take a good look at themselves.

2) The lease of the car park and the ”Bermuda Triangle” at the far north of the site. This was bought in 2023 by David Cameron, after he left the Board, and Ross Morrison while he was still chairman. This purchase was made effectively from Tulloch, who appear to have held on to the “Propco” after handing the rest back some years after their rescue of the club from its crisis of 2000. As a result, the club made no money from this transaction, so I am still searching to understand why Cameron and Morrison acquired this interest. It appears that for as long as ownership of these parts of the lease remain outwith the club, a sale would be more difficult.

It therefore emerges that Cameron and Morrison are the two biggest components in relation to BDO’s efforts to restore ICT to the status of a going concern, and it may well emerge that the club’s fate is in the hands of these two individuals who also occupied important roles as the club spiralled more and more deeply into debt.

There has also been speculation that the lease of the current East Longman site may, in a worst case scenario, be acquired by parties external to the club (leaving the club, if it still exists, with the difficult task of finding another home) and desirous of using the land for some development purpose. It’s at this point that Highland Council, as custodians of the Common Good Fund which owns the land, may have a role. I am in little doubt that the original 1994 lease (which was contentious within the Council at that time) was given specifically for the purpose of bringing Scottish League football to Inverness and indeed the club also paid £1.3M for the approach road which subsequently revolutionised the entire waterfront round to the harbour. We therefore have to ask whether, in extremis, the council would permit any other use? It’s been suggested that the council may not feel very well disposed towards the club, given the uncivilised manner in which the council were treated over the battery farm. However it also has to be noted that those who were involved in that unwise backlash are no longer involved with ICT.

I think the next month or so could be crucial to the club’s future, and to whether or not it has one - with David Cameron and Ross Morrison the two major players in whether there can be life after administration.

Edited January 9 by Charles Bannerman

[+CaleyD]

10 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I think the next month or so could be crucial to the club’s future, and to whether or not it has one - with David Cameron and Ross Morrison the two major players in whether there can be life after administration.

I'm confident there will be life after administration, and what it will look like has very little to do with the current public perceived car park scenario.

As I said before, I'm not hopeful that we'll get to a point of agreeing a CVA with creditors, regardless of the car park situation, because there's still the hurdle of shareholding/control for any new investor.

We're being fed the line that the car parks need to go back to the club to improve the likelihood of a sale, but if liquidation is the more likely scenario then it all being under one company (the club) increases the likelihood of a buyer with more interest in developing the area than developing the club being interested.

RM and DC have already said they would be willing to do a deal with/speak to any new/potential owner or investor, so it's not really an obstacle to a sale in terms of cost to them, it just means less money to the club and less for creditors (and who are the main creditors?) from CVA/Liquidation.  It does also mean that they (RM & DC) are not hindered by having to accept the highest bid and could (maybe) ensure the lease doesn't end up in the hands of someone not interested in the club.

Is it possible they're all just being cnuts and looking out for themselves? Yes. However, there is also a possibility that they are also looking to try and protect the clubs future.

Just because they may be at odds with the way AS is doing things doesn't make them the bad guys...and vice versa.

Knowing all parties involved, I don't believe any of them want to screw over the club, but as has been the frustration since the club came into being (and before), we would be so much better off if they could find a way to work together.

[+CaleyD]

On 1/8/2025 at 1:58 PM, STFU said:

They're notorious for inaccurate and misleading headlines. Wannabe tabloid these days.

Just as a wee point of note. The journalists don't write the headlines.

The reason we see so many 'clickbaity' headlines is because they achieve exactly that...clicks...and with the demise of print media, clicks are what pays the bills/wages.

It's the modern version of the billboard, just far more prolific!

 

[Charles Bannerman]

2 hours ago, CaleyD said:

We're being fed the line that the car parks need to go back to the club to improve the likelihood of a sale, but if liquidation is the more likely scenario then it all being under one company (the club) increases the likelihood of a buyer with more interest in developing the area than developing the club being interested.

RM and DC have already said they would be willing to do a deal with/speak to any new/potential owner or investor…

The entire portfolio of club assets at East Longman is already currently in effect under the control of one entity, in that Morrison holds security over the stadium (unless that’s successfully challenged) while the car park/Bermuda Triangle lease belongs to him and to Cameron who is also owed £410K…. although it’s not clear why they should have wanted to acquire that lease from a third party in a deal that produced no money for the club.

I’m sure RM and DC would indeed be willing to discuss a deal over the car park etc lease, but I would like to know just how hard a bargain they would be likely to pursue regarding this asset which they own.

Meanwhile I can’t get away from mystification at why, for a period of years when DC and in particular RM held responsible roles, the club was allowed to sleepwalk more and more deeply into ever increasing debt, much of it, with security, to the chairman who also presided over a decision to try to sell the club to the obvious fantasist who was Ketan Makwana.

Was it just that they didn’t feel the bullets tearing into their feet?

Edited January 10 by Charles Bannerman

[Starscape]

8 hours ago, CaleyD said:

It does also mean that they (RM & DC) are not hindered by having to accept the highest bid and could (maybe) ensure the lease doesn't end up in the hands of someone not interested in the club.

Who did RM appoint as CEO and still defends him? Who did RM try to sell the club to, then reintroduce once in administration?

I still hope that they might be easy to deal with, but I also hope they have zero say on how, as RM would have it, Inverness Kelty is run.

They messed up. They racked up the huge debt. Profiting on the back of this is not being a supporter. They need to do the decent thing and pay for their own failings.

[+CaleyD]

8 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The entire portfolio of club assets at East Longman is already currently in effect under the control of one entity, in that Morrison holds security over the stadium (unless that’s successfully challenged) while the car park/Bermuda Triangle lease belongs to him and to Cameron who is also owed £410K…. although it’s not clear why they should have wanted to acquire that lease from a third party in a deal that produced no money for the club.

That's not my evaluation of the situation.

There's no argument that the car parks are under the control of RM & DC. Also, as far as I am aware, the club have never directly owned or held the lease for the 'Bermuda Triangle', but they did have permission to use it...my understanding being that this was done to satisfy the need for additional parking when the stadium capacity was increased. I'm not even certain it's held directly by the propco.

As for the ground lease for the area occupied by the stadium, the buildings, and the other tangible assets of the club, these are entirely under the control of the administrator at this stage.

A charge does not give the lender control of the asset on which it is secured...in much the same way as a mortgage lender has no control over a persons house. What it does do is entitle them to the proceeds of any sale up to the value they are owed, before any other creditor are paid.

The floating charge would have become a fixed charge the moment club went into administration.  This is important as it means that RM has no direct claim on any assets acquired after that date...assets can include things like merchandise, players (or proceeds from the sale thereof), ticket income etc.  This happens to allow a company to continue trading during administration without creating a further legal minefield.

We also need to keep in mind that the administrator is there to act in the interest of the creditors and not the club, the fans, the community, or any consultants. For now, they are taking a position that keeping the club going gives the creditors the best chance of getting (at least some of) their money back.

If/when they get to the stage where they no longer believe that's the case and the company (club) is no longer viable, the sale of assets begins... liquidation... however, for the reasons stated above, the stadium lease would not be for sale.

The lease for the both the car parks and the stadium cannot be transferred to another entity without the consent of the landlord.  In the case of the car parks, the entity is the propco and not the directors. In the case of the stadium site, the entity is IT&CFC Ltd.

If the leaseholding entity is struck off, the lease effectively gets cancelled and HC/CGF are free to do with the land as they please.

The above is, as far as I can ascertain, the facts of the situation, and are verifiable.  The rest of your post gets into the realms of speculation and opinion, which I don't want to get in to.

Edited January 10 by CaleyD
Changed irrefutable to verifiable

[+CaleyD]

7 minutes ago, Starscape said:

Who did RM appoint as CEO and still defends him? Who did RM try to sell the club to, then reintroduce once in administration?

I still hope that they might be easy to deal with, but I also hope they have zero say on how, as RM would have it, Inverness Kelty is run.

They messed up. They racked up the huge debt. Profiting on the back of this is not being a supporter. They need to do the decent thing and pay for their own failings.

I am by no means defending the actions and decisions of those that landed us where we are.  What is important right now, though, is how we get out of it.

I will wager one thing, none of the parties involved are making money from this...other than the administrators and solicitors!

[IBM]

9 hours ago, CaleyD said:

I'm confident there will be life after administration, and what it will look like has very little to do with the current public perceived car park scenario.

As I said before, I'm not hopeful that we'll get to a point of agreeing a CVA with creditors, regardless of the car park situation, because there's still the hurdle of shareholding/control for any new investor.

We're being fed the line that the car parks need to go back to the club to improve the likelihood of a sale, but if liquidation is the more likely scenario then it all being under one company (the club) increases the likelihood of a buyer with more interest in developing the area than developing the club being interested.

RM and DC have already said they would be willing to do a deal with/speak to any new/potential owner or investor, so it's not really an obstacle to a sale in terms of cost to them, it just means less money to the club and less for creditors (and who are the main creditors?) from CVA/Liquidation.  It does also mean that they (RM & DC) are not hindered by having to accept the highest bid and could (maybe) ensure the lease doesn't end up in the hands of someone not interested in the club.

Is it possible they're all just being cnuts and looking out for themselves? Yes. However, there is also a possibility that they are also looking to try and protect the clubs future.

Just because they may be at odds with the way AS is doing things doesn't make them the bad guys...and vice versa.

Knowing all parties involved, I don't believe any of them want to screw over the club, but as has been the frustration since the club came into being (and before), we would be so much better off if they could find a way to work together.

CaleyD,

your last sentence sums it up Perfectly that has always been the problem with the people running our club.

[Charles Bannerman]

17 hours ago, CaleyD said:

As for the ground lease for the area occupied by the stadium, the buildings, and the other tangible assets of the club, these are entirely under the control of the administrator at this stage.

A charge does not give the lender control of the asset on which it is secured...in much the same way as a mortgage lender has no control over a persons house. What it does do is entitle them to the proceeds of any sale up to the value they are owed, before any other creditor are paid.

I used the words “in effect” to cater very briefly for that very complex scenario. Ross Morrison (unless his charge is declared invalid) has priority ahead of the club with regard to the stadium and that part of the lease - UNLESS he gets his £1.65 million back and the charge is satisfied. That level of control could include agreeing to write the debt off or accept a possibly modest percentage repayment…. or asking for his pound of flesh (albeit without any blood!)

[+CaleyD]

He has no priority over the lease the stadium sits on because it is not a transferable asset and cannot be sold.

[STFU]

All of that is why I think it would be useful for fans to hear the position of Cameron and Morrison from them.