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

[Charles Bannerman]

I think it’s morally incumbent upon Ross Morrison to take a look at his role in all of this and perhaps concede that he “owes the club one”.

It has been abundantly clear since at least 2019 that the club had become fundamentally and chronically loss making, as demonstrated by £1M in share capital having to be raised for cash flow across the 18 months or so up to October 2019. However that difficulty simply never seemed to be addressed and the hat kept getting passed round during the years that followed, drawing the club more and more deeply into debt. This, on Ross Morrison’s watch, seemed to be justified by a series of catastrophic attempts to raise money through non-football activities that came outrageously unstuck, as one “jam tomorrow” scheme after another nosedived in a manner which the board seemed completely unable to foresee.

The biggest component is Ross Morrison’s £1.6M loan which - uniquely as far as I am aware - carried security with it. Quite frankly, I have always been very uncomfortable with this scenario where the man in charge of an obviously failing business makes an enormous loan which is exclusively secured against the assets of that business. In so doing, at a time when the business was already failing badly and non-football activities had begun to fall apart, Ross Morrison was arguably putting the already ailing club’s assets at risk in a scenario he had created himself, with no risk to himself.

As a result, given his role (and Gardiner’s) in the club getting into the state it did, I hope that Mr Morrison’s better nature and sense of his own legacy will lead him to make substantial concessions with respect to what he allowed himself to be owed here, and that he will begin to act quickly.

Just one slightly unrelated post script here. The car park situation is actually a legacy of the previous crisis of 1999-2000 from which Tullochs extricated the club with an input of £5M, most of which was eventually written off.

Edited March 17 by Charles Bannerman

[big cherly]

5 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I think it’s morally incumbent upon Ross Morrison to take a look at his role in all of this and perhaps concede that he “owes the club one”.

It has been abundantly clear since at least 2019 that the club had become fundamentally and chronically loss making, as demonstrated by £1M in share capital having to be raised for cash flow across the 18 months or so up to October 2019. However that difficulty simply never seemed to be addressed and the hat kept getting passed round during the years that followed, drawing the club more and more deeply into debt. This, on Ross Morrison’s watch, seemed to be justified by a series of catastrophic attempts to raise money through non-football activities that came outrageously unstuck, as one “jam tomorrow” scheme after another nosedived in a manner which the board seemed completely unable to foresee.

The biggest component is Ross Morrison’s £1.6M loan which - uniquely as far as I am aware - carried security with it. Quite frankly, I have always been very uncomfortable with this scenario where the man in charge of an obviously failing business makes an enormous loan which is exclusively secured against the assets of that business. In so doing, at a time when the business was already failing badly and non-football activities had begun to fall apart, Ross Morrison was arguably putting the already ailing club’s assets at risk in a scenario where he had created with no risk to himself.

As a result, given his role (and Gardiner’s) in the club getting into the state it did, I hope that Mr Morrison’s better nature and sense of his own legacy will lead him to make substantial concessions with respect to what he allowed himself to be owed here, and that he will begin to act quickly.

Just one slightly unrelated post script here. The car park situation is actually a legacy of the previous crisis of 1999-2000 from which Tullochs extricated the club with an input of £5M, most of which was eventually written off.

Excellent summary Charles, well put. 
Only we have a couple of tough vices to abate and deal with, self-interest and greed! 
bc

[RednBlackComeback]

38 minutes ago, bishbashbosh said:

Q&A session added on

 

Interesting vision of the future there in moving the stadium. Would that create a 'Campus Camp Nou'

I suppose that's one way of working around the lease ownership issues?

[+DoofersDad]

Well said, Charles.  Morrison has been spectacularly incompetent over his time as Chairman and now wants others to dig deep into their pockets to pay back his loan.  Has the man absolutely no shame at all?  He is not the only one to blame though.  There would have been no secured loan unless his colleagues on the Board agreed to it.  They, surely also have some moral responsibility to dig deep into their pockets to get the club out of the mess that they helped to create.   

There are a lot of people at the club, from Alan Savage to matchday volunteers who are doing a brilliant job trying to save the club.  It is heartbreaking to think that all their efforts could be for nothing at the end of the day.  The club certainly can still be saved as there are people who would be keen to put money into the club.   The thing is, they are not prepared to pay £1.5M to the man who got the club into this mess.  Nobody should loan money that they can't afford to lose.  It is time that Morrison accepted that the money is gone.  In accepting that, he could make sure the club does not disappear as well.  Come on, man.  A city is waiting for you to finally do the decent thing.

[CaleyD]

From what's been said, I don't think the security has passed scrutiny.

AS said that the person holding £1.5M would walk away with the largest share of any CVA. If the security was solid, then they'd likely walk away with all of any CVA.

I also can't get my head around why it's going to need £1.8 million of investment to get through next season? That would suggest our financial position would be worse than it was under Morrison and Gardiner!

The stadium shift to UHI campus is not a new idea. That was being talked about nearly 10 years ago.

[Jack Waddington]

This club drives me up the walls sometimes...

 

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/sport/caley-thistle-creditors-willing-to-do-what-is-right-by-the-377209/

[big cherly]

9 hours ago, CaleyD said:

From what's been said, I don't think the security has passed scrutiny.

AS said that the person holding £1.5M would walk away with the largest share of any CVA. If the security was solid, then they'd likely walk away with all of any CVA.

I also can't get my head around why it's going to need £1.8 million of investment to get through next season? That would suggest our financial position would be worse than it was under Morrison and Gardiner!

The stadium shift to UHI campus is not a new idea. That was being talked about nearly 10 years ago.

The threat to hand back the stadium is the strongest (possibly only) remaining card AS can play.  Fan pressure on RM et al, has failed to date, and I see no inclination that will change. AS has said he’s put in enough of his money and will walk if others are not forthcoming. I personally disagree Joe Public (taxpayers) should cough up as only a small fraction has the slightest interest in football or the club. They are rightly more interested in the pot holes getting repaired.

So if RM, Cameron and the rest are unwilling to budge, then dumping the stadium is the right threat. It’s either liquidation or continue in a much smaller (viable) operation at another ground. - They exist!

bc

Edited March 18 by big cherly

[ictchris]

At the end of it, these guys are owed £3m by a lower league Scottish football club.  They aren't getting their money back.

[Charles Bannerman]

6 minutes ago, ictchris said:

At the end of it, these guys are owed £3m by a lower league Scottish football club.  They aren't getting their money back.

“Best Short Quote Of The Week” award!

[mazza20]

I had always thought the way admin worked was a buyer made an offer and then the administrator would work out how much each creditor would get based on the offer ie someone comes in and offers 1.75m to clear the debt and own the club, then the 3.5m debt would work out to be 50p per £1 owed. Is that not the case, is it more creditors will agree to a minimum they will accept and a buyer has to match that expectation? For example, creditors want 80p per £1 owed. I have probably grossly simplified the process, but I always understood it as this what you'll get as a creditor accept it or you'll get nothing.

[Ronaldo]

I assume netflix are still not  interested?

[Charles Bannerman]

26 minutes ago, Ronaldo said:

I assume netflix are still not  interested?

I’m thinking more “soap opera”. “Mainstanders” maybe?

[Starscape]

1 hour ago, Jack Waddington said:

This club drives me up the walls sometimes...

 

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/sport/caley-thistle-creditors-willing-to-do-what-is-right-by-the-377209/

I wonder if RM regarded his tenure as safe hands? Or if he's still convinced phygital is the way to go. Give him the details of prospective buyers and let's move on. Either RM liquidates us or he gives us a new start. Way past time for any positive legacy.

[+snorbens_caleyman]

41 minutes ago, mazza20 said:

I had always thought the way admin worked was a buyer made an offer and then the administrator would work out how much each creditor would get based on the offer ie someone comes in and offers 1.75m to clear the debt and own the club, then the 3.5m debt would work out to be 50p per £1 owed. Is that not the case, is it more creditors will agree to a minimum they will accept and a buyer has to match that expectation?

The company - in this case the administrators - makes a repayment proposal to the creditors.  Say 25% of what is owed.  You don't have to be looking for a buyer for the company - you could be in adminstration and propose a CVA just to clear debts.  But in our case we do need a buyer to keep the club going.

They will have worked out the CVA proposal based on what a buyer might be willing to fund, and on what the company can afford.  Bit of a dilemma here - you want to make a proposal that the creditors will accept, but you don't want to make it too big so that it puts off potential buyers.

The CVA then has to be accepted by creditors representing at least 75% by value of the company's debts.  This is why Morrison could veto it, because he is owed more than 25% of the money outstanding.   From a quick look at the document published a while ago by BDO, no other single creditor is owed more than 25%.  It looked as though Cameron and Munro together might be owed more than 25%, and after that you can put together a few different groupings of creditors to exceed the 25%.

Don's point about Morrison's security is interesting.  I came across this on a financial services website: "Secured creditors are not bound by the agreement".  I assume that this means, as Don was hinting, that his security would "trump" the CVA, and that he could insist on being repaid in full regardless of whether the CVA was accepted.  (But since he has the power of veto on the CVA, it wouldn't be accepted if he wanted all his money back.  He really has the club by the short and curlies.)

The same website also said this: "No investigation into directors’ conduct

A CVA avoids company liquidation and, therefore, requires no investigation of directors’ conduct leading up to insolvency. Any accusations of wrongful trading or improper practices are avoided".

I am not sure how far back such an investigation would go.  But it might make some people pause for thought!

[+DoofersDad]

1 hour ago, Jack Waddington said:

This club drives me up the walls sometimes...

 

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/sport/caley-thistle-creditors-willing-to-do-what-is-right-by-the-377209/

So, if the major creditors are "willing to do what is right by the club" and there are potential investors who are not willing to put in an offer because of the level of debts owed to creditors, what's the problem?  What have the administrators been doing for the past few months beyond raking in a lot of Alan Savage's money?  It is surely reasonable for the creditors to be involved in some level of discussion with potential investors. If that were that to happen, then the creditors' stated willingness to write off most of their loans can be put to the test.

[tm4tj]

Jacks above post opened out for clarity in the Inverness Courier

Inverness Caley Thistle creditors ‘willing to do what is right by club’ as long as future is in safe hands, says spokesman in response to administrators’ statement

 By Andrew Henderson 

- [email protected]

 Published: 06:00, 18 March 2025

A spokesman for several of Inverness Caledonian Thistle’s major creditors has said that they are willing to set aside the debt owed to them if it helps secure the club’s future.

However, that comes on the condition of meeting any potential buyer to ensure that the Caley Jags will be left in good hands.

Inverness Caledonian Thistle's long-term future has been plunged back into doubt. Picture: James Mackenzie

A statement from the football club’s joint-administrators BDO yesterday revealed that there were no offers put in to buy the club before their deadline on Thursday, March 6.

BDO said three factors were proving problematic to a potential sale: the scale of loans from former directors, disparate shareholding making it difficult for a buyer to obtain the required control, and the uncertainty stemming from the ownership of land around the stadium.

Investing £250 with AI could generate a second incomegraphicgleamy.com

On the first point, BDO says it has written to relevant former directors asking them to fulfil an agreement made last summer to write off their loans – with some having agreed, and others still pending.

Emails seen by the Inverness Courier confirm that the major creditors of the club were willing to either write off their loans, or equitise them at that stage.

Now, a spokesman for a number of those creditors has said: “We remain willing to do what is right by the club and to set aside this debt to facilitate a good sale.

“The only thing we want is to know who a potential buyer might be to ensure the club will be placed in good hands.

“The debt owed to us is not a problem, and our position has not changed since at least August of last year.

“Regarding the land, we have not been approached by any parties that were enquiring about the availability of the land as they were looking at the club. As we stated before – we or our agents have been available to chat to any prospective buyers of the club.”

On a separate matter, an agent for the land has confirmed that no contact or requests have been forthcoming from anyone interested in taking over the club.

[+old caley girl]

30 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

So, if the major creditors are "willing to do what is right by the club" and there are potential investors who are not willing to put in an offer because of the level of debts owed to creditors, what's the problem?  What have the administrators been doing for the past few months beyond raking in a lot of Alan Savage's money?  It is surely reasonable for the creditors to be involved in some level of discussion with potential investors. If that were that to happen, then the creditors' stated willingness to write off most of their loans can be put to the test.

That's the most annoying bit. Allegedly they haven't been engaging and now the buyers have been scared off. They obviously don't want a particular individual to take control so why leave it this late? Looks like RM holds all the strings either way DD? Sick of rich men playing games with our club. 

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

RM being disqualified as a Director would have a significant impact on his finances. However, that might not help the club (football company) if it is liquidated.

[+snorbens_caleyman]

On the subject of no one contacting Propco (?) about the land around the stadium, I guess we can't blame the administrators for that.  

The lease on that land is not owned by the club/company, and must therefore be outside of the adminstrators' remit.  They could put a potential buyer in touch.  And maybe informally encourage a deal, if it would influence the sale of the club.  

But anything else would be out of their hands.

[Charles Bannerman]

1 hour ago, old caley girl said:

 Sick of rich men playing games with our club. 

The fundamental nature of football… where clubs almost invariably spend more than they earn, principally because they pay players more than their realistic market value… makes it inevitable that the game will be critically dependent on rich men.

This could be looked upon as a form of Socialism where the assets of the rich are redistributed to people who might otherwise find it more difficult to survive.

[Scotty]

4 hours ago, tm4tj said:

BDO says it has written to relevant former directors asking them to fulfil an agreement made last summer to write off their loans – with some having agreed, and others still pending.

In reality, it depends on who agreed and who is pending. If RM is pending then anything and anyone else is pretty much irrelevant. 

4 hours ago, tm4tj said:

Now, a spokesman for a number of those creditors has said: “We remain willing to do what is right by the club and to set aside this debt to facilitate a good sale. The only thing we want is to know who a potential buyer might be to ensure the club will be placed in good hands. The debt owed to us is not a problem, and our position has not changed since at least August of last year.

Again, depends on who is in that "number of creditors". 

With NDAs in place, then hopefully BDO and the potential buyers could agree to "meet" with those creditors if that's all it will take. However, the hypocrisy of "ensuring the club is in good hands" beggars belief. Those same people employed a man who we all blame for the situation we are in, must still take their own part of the blame for allowing that man to operate without any governance or oversight, and then tried to flog the club to Makwana! With all due respect - their definition of good hands is full of shit! IMHO.   

4 hours ago, tm4tj said:

“Regarding the land, we have not been approached by any parties that were enquiring about the availability of the land as they were looking at the club. As we stated before – we or our agents have been available to chat to any prospective buyers of the club.” On a separate matter, an agent for the land has confirmed that no contact or requests have been forthcoming from anyone interested in taking over the club.

Presumably because everything is correctly going through the administrators and has not yet got to the stage in any agreement where all the hurdles have been jumped over and it then requires a conversation about the land ... If you cant get past the debt, ownership and shareholding issues then discussion about parcels of land are irrelevant. 

This smacks of PR spin, and an attempt to polish the turd of how those same people allowed the club to be run for the last 6 or 7 years.  

 

[Jack Waddington]

A touch off topic but has it been explained why the UHI has been chosen for a potential downgrade, given it A) doesn't have a pitch, and B) still has the same out-of-the-way-edness that the TCS has?

Surely it'd be better to forge a new path by moving more central to the Bught or (and this'll have the Caley OGs foaming at the mouth ) Kingsmills? Both within a stones throw of the city center, and would provide the area with playing facilities whether we return to the TCS or rent it out like *ahem* Kelty supposedly do

[Charles Bannerman]

2 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

A touch off topic but has it been explained why the UHI has been chosen for a potential downgrade, given it A) doesn't have a pitch, and B) still has the same out-of-the-way-edness that the TCS has?

Surely it'd be better to forge a new path by moving more central to the Bught or (and this'll have the Caley OGs foaming at the mouth ) Kingsmills? Both within a stones throw of the city center, and would provide the area with playing facilities whether we return to the TCS or rent it out like *ahem* Kelty supposedly do

Without weighing up the pros, cons and feasibility of the UHI in detail, the first thing that comes to mind is traffic on match days. That part of Inverness is already stretched past its limits in terms of traffic capacity in relation to how much development is already there. Presumably some cooperation would also be required from UHI regarding parking.

[Scotty]

20 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

A touch off topic but has it been explained why the UHI has been chosen for a potential downgrade, given it A) doesn't have a pitch, and B) still has the same out-of-the-way-edness that the TCS has?

Surely it'd be better to forge a new path by moving more central to the Bught or (and this'll have the Caley OGs foaming at the mouth ) Kingsmills? Both within a stones throw of the city center, and would provide the area with playing facilities whether we return to the TCS or rent it out like *ahem* Kelty supposedly do

The Bught would never happen. Yes, it is green space and has sporting history, but why would or should the football club muscle in on athletics, shinty and rugby? not to mention the green space for walking around the islands and other leisure facilities. Transport links may have improved from the 1990s when it was considered and thrown out, and while they are better, they are still not great... but all the issues of sharing the space are still there. 

Kingsmills is now housing and Telford Street is retail so neither are an option. 

I am guessing that UHI is being suggested as most universities do tend to have athletic or sports programmes and these at some point require facilities that the university or donors help to finance. A purpose-built compact stadium at UHI may come at a lower cost than we might think (or not).

Is this the end game? to interest a potential buyer in taking over the lease currently occupied by the Caledonian Stadium, negating the need to discuss land deals for the other small parcels being mentioned, and potentially adding that land to the freeport .. then getting any new buyer to fund relocation to a smaller site? This is basically what we hoped ASDA would do all those years ago !!!     

 

[+TheCaleyOne]

I can't pretend I properly understand half of what is going on at the moment but when AS said yesterday about "if 3 people put in 300k each and he wiil have put in 1.3 million" is that just to keep us going for next season still in administration and to give longer to find a buyer?