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

[Scotty]

I will refer to my signature and the quote from AS himself ....  "It’s not a train set – it’s a proud member of the SPFL" : Alan Savage [30/07/2024]"

If ANYONE - and that includes AS - is treating ICT as a power play or a plaything like that proverbial train set then that is not right and is not acceptable. Like everyone else here I want what is best for our club, but also like most, I am just a normal working guy, and just can't afford to 'do the right thing' by the club in that way. I will do what I can in terms of shares, donations or merchandise purchases, but I cant match what Savage, Morrison, Sutherland et all have done in the past or may do in future. 

Currently, I will give AS a fair bit of leeway as he has stepped up and put money where his mouth is (again). All of those power-brokers who were at that meeting have similarly done their part at one time or another including RM who we know made some bad choices but still sunk seven figures into the club. The minutiae and semantics of that is for another topic. There are also a lot of other instances over the years where previous leaders of our club have done unseen or unknown things to make sure costs were controlled at the club, picked up by someone else, or paid out of their own pockets.  

I can see AS' point to an extent in wanting control. When he was chairman previously, he did not have that and there were well documented power struggles and personality conflicts that basically led to his resignation. I know I am over-simplifying that part of our history, but I can see him not wanting the same scenario this time around if he is trying to save the club and ends up meeting 10 different dissenting voices each time we try to take a step forward.  

I have reservations over the 100% ownership thing unless it comes with some form of protection and succession plan should he himself lose interest, or possibly more likely, that as he ages, he is less able to manage the day to day running of a football club and those who take over from him are uninterested (the Gretna scenario). If 'clearing the decks' so to speak is simply a mechanism to tidy up and remove current shares and debts and then to offer these to a new owner, or as a brand new public share issue, then that's more acceptable but as someone said, the devil will be in the details and we dont have those details.  For me however, the 10% voting right of the Trust should be non-negotiable. Their relevance and value has always been questioned in some corners over the years, but there is no denying what they have also done during this time, the value it brings, and hopefully that they will continue to do provided they have some say and some skin in the game... 

The other thing here is to wonder about the end game. Something that sticks in my head is the mention of relocation to UHI. Personally, I am not against this as such. I love the Caledonian Stadium, but if we are honest, and look at it in terms of practicality, the stadium is not in the best location, and a smaller purpose-built stadium, with training facilities, shared with UHI and perhaps sponsored by donors to UHI or corporate sponsors, and with shared costs makes a lot of sense provided it could be financed somehow. This would free up the current site for other activities if that parcel of land could be added to the freeport. I have no idea if any of this is possible, but provided any activity in this area was for the benefit of the club and secured a future for us then I would not be automatically opposed. I am not opposed to any consortium or person making a profit from this kind of venture, provided the club gets its fair share and does not get ripped off. The city is not so big that UHI is too far away. The transport links are ok, and if there were public transport on matchdays then this makes it just as convenient for some (and inconvenient for others) as the Caledonian stadium. 

Time will tell whether we are erecting a statue of AS and other benefactors in front of the Caledonian Stadium (wherever it is) or if he is written into history with some of the others who are on our personal sh** lists because we regard them as having tried to kill our club. For me, the club would already be dead thanks to the actions or inactions of others by now, so AS is still on my statue list and not my **** list! I really hope it stays that way!           

[Charles Bannerman]

6 hours ago, Scotty said:

I will refer to my signature and the quote from AS himself ....  "It’s not a train set – it’s a proud member of the SPFL" : Alan Savage [30/07/2024]"

If ANYONE - and that includes AS - is treating ICT as a power play or a plaything like that proverbial train set then that is not right and is not acceptable. Like everyone else here I want what is best for our club, but also like most, I am just a normal working guy, and just can't afford to 'do the right thing' by the club in that way. I will do what I can in terms of shares, donations or merchandise purchases, but I cant match what Savage, Morrison, Sutherland et all have done in the past or may do in future. 

Currently, I will give AS a fair bit of leeway as he has stepped up and put money where his mouth is (again). All of those power-brokers who were at that meeting have similarly done their part at one time or another including RM who we know made some bad choices but still sunk seven figures into the club. The minutiae and semantics of that is for another topic. There are also a lot of other instances over the years where previous leaders of our club have done unseen or unknown things to make sure costs were controlled at the club, picked up by someone else, or paid out of their own pockets.  

I can see AS' point to an extent in wanting control. When he was chairman previously, he did not have that and there were well documented power struggles and personality conflicts that basically led to his resignation. I know I am over-simplifying that part of our history, but I can see him not wanting the same scenario this time around if he is trying to save the club and ends up meeting 10 different dissenting voices each time we try to take a step forward.  

I have reservations over the 100% ownership thing unless it comes with some form of protection and succession plan should he himself lose interest, or possibly more likely, that as he ages, he is less able to manage the day to day running of a football club and those who take over from him are uninterested (the Gretna scenario). If 'clearing the decks' so to speak is simply a mechanism to tidy up and remove current shares and debts and then to offer these to a new owner, or as a brand new public share issue, then that's more acceptable but as someone said, the devil will be in the details and we dont have those details.  For me however, the 10% voting right of the Trust should be non-negotiable. Their relevance and value has always been questioned in some corners over the years, but there is no denying what they have also done during this time, the value it brings, and hopefully that they will continue to do provided they have some say.            

The ST’s 10% voting right - which is not a shareholding but a fixed 10% in any vote irrespective of shares - wasn’t mentioned at last week’s press event. Its effect would be to require anyone wishing for total control, which I think requires 75% of voting strength, to hold 83% of the shares to achieve it, and this perhaps helps partly explain why AS is setting his sights high. I don’t know what the ST’s position is on possibly surrendering this right, even if this os required, but if AS could amass 75% voting rights, I believe he would have the clout to make the necessary arrangements to force that if he insisted - but I am sure he is also savvy enough to know that he needs to take the fans with him.

As regards a shift of stadium, I would personally be quite happy to move from East Longman to a better location such as UHI, but I’m not clear how realistic this would be in terms of land availability (which was even a problem in 1994) and cost. In the case of the latter, just how willing would external parties be to hand over or contribute cash or assets to a football club that has already gone through massive amounts of other people’s money (I would estimate anything up to £15 million in the last 30 years). I would caution against any view that people will put their hands in their pockets simply because it’s Caley Thistle - especially since the club is only now beginning to recover from the largely self-inflicted injury of its battered image and credibility among local movers, shakers and business people.

[CaleyD]

6 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The ST’s 10% voting right - which is not a shareholding but a fixed 10% in any vote irrespective of shares

This part is not quite accurate.

The 10% voting right is an enhancement on a specific set of 108 shares held by the Supporters Trust.

At present, this is equivalent to them holding just over 400,000 shares.  They also hold an additional 13500 shares (or there abouts), which have normal voting rights.

It's that 413,500 (ish) number which would be counted in any vote held, regardless of the number of other shares cast in that vote.

In actuality, if every share was cast in a vote, they'd have (marginally) over 10%.  However, the fewer shareholders voting, the greater that % becomes on any specific vote.

e.g. 2 million shares involved in a vote would mean ST would have around 17% of the vote....413.5K/(2M+413.5K)%

As you correctly point out, anything over 75% would give authority to change the company articles, and they could simply strike off the Supporters Trust voting right by way of a special resolution....if so minded.

The voting right also has an interesting history...and I'm happy to receive any corrections to the following, especially from the early days.

Originally sitting with the members club, the 108 shares each carried a 10,000 share voting right.

Not sure if anything changed in between, but...

Around 2002 it was changed to facilitate the investment made by Tulloch/DFS at the time, however there was an (unfortunate?) quirk in the calculation implemented that meant the more shares held, the lower the voting right got!

When this was highlighted to the main shareholders at the time, they almost instantly agreed to a correction, but there was a lot of negotiation around what the change should be.  We wanted 15%, some of the main players wanted 5% (and more money to secure that)....we settled on 10%, and it got unanimously backed by all the big shareholders at the AGM in 2011.

[Charles Bannerman]

9 hours ago, CaleyD said:

This part is not quite accurate.

The 10% voting right is an enhancement on a specific set of 108 shares held by the Supporters Trust.

At present, this is equivalent to them holding just over 400,000 shares.  They also hold an additional 13500 shares (or there abouts), which have normal voting rights.

It's that 413,500 (ish) number which would be counted in any vote held, regardless of the number of other shares cast in that vote.

In actuality, if every share was cast in a vote, they'd have (marginally) over 10%.  However, the fewer shareholders voting, the greater that % becomes on any specific vote.

e.g. 2 million shares involved in a vote would mean ST would have around 17% of the vote....413.5K/(2M+413.5K)%

As you correctly point out, anything over 75% would give authority to change the company articles, and they could simply strike off the Supporters Trust voting right by way of a special resolution....if so minded.

The voting right also has an interesting history...and I'm happy to receive any corrections to the following, especially from the early days.

Originally sitting with the members club, the 108 shares each carried a 10,000 share voting right.

Not sure if anything changed in between, but...

Around 2002 it was changed to facilitate the investment made by Tulloch/DFS at the time, however there was an (unfortunate?) quirk in the calculation implemented that meant the more shares held, the lower the voting right got!

When this was highlighted to the main shareholders at the time, they almost instantly agreed to a correction, but there was a lot of negotiation around what the change should be.  We wanted 15%, some of the main players wanted 5% (and more money to secure that)....we settled on 10%, and it got unanimously backed by all the big shareholders at the AGM in 2011.

OK D… if you want to split hairs, I’ll add the word “ordinary”.

I remember attending the AGM when the 10% was agreed. Was there not a stage where the ST had a fixed 50%, which DFS wanted reduced because any potential new shareholders would be put off by the difficulty of acquiring influence?

I believe that the block in question has its origins in the assets of Thistle and Caley as realised mainly in the mid 90s. Interestingly, excluding the Caley Social Club which was sold later, these were disposed of for something in the region of a gross £1.6M+ (mainly Kingsmills, Telford Street and the Thistle Club) but their net value, as quoted by the club when the stadium opened, was £1.225M. We can presumably take it that the difference represents various costs - mainly legal - associated with the merger.

If I were to allow my head to rule my heart on this one, I would feel inclined to agree that, given that the club has EFFECTIVELY gone bust twice and the stadium has been security against a bailout on both occasions, I would find it morally difficult to justify that 10% being retained. (But only morally!!)

Edited April 4 by Charles Bannerman

[CaleyD]

3 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

OK D… if you want to split hairs, I’ll add the word “ordinary”.

I remember attending the AGM when the 10% was agreed. Was there not a stage where the ST had a fixed 50%, which DFS wanted reduced because any potential new shareholders would be put off by the difficulty of acquiring influence?

I believe that the block in question has its origins in the assets of Thistle and Caley as realised mainly in the mid 90s. Interestingly, excluding the Caley Social Club which was sold later, these were disposed of for something in the region of a gross £1.6M+ (mainly Kingsmills, Telford Street and the Thistle Club) but their net value, as quoted by the club when the stadium opened, was £1.225M. We can presumably take it that the difference represents various costs - mainly legal - associated with the merger.

If I were to allow my head to rule my heart on this one, I would feel inclined to agree that, given that the club has EFFECTIVELY gone bust twice and the stadium has been security against a bailout on both occasions, I would find it morally difficult to justify that 10% being retained. (But only morally!!)

I wasn't looking to split hairs and had read your '...a fixed 10% in any vote...' as meaning that if 1 million votes were cast, the trust would have 100,000....or 10% of whatever the voting count was in any particular instance.  Just wanted to clarify that wasn't how it works.

The Supporters Trust came into being in 2005, but I believe the voting right, when held by the members club, was at or around the 50% mark at one point.  The original formula use to calculate that right was changed...and it was that new formula that meant that if the Members Club...or subsequently the Supporters Trust...bought any more shares, their voting right decreased.

When the decision was made to do away with the formula and set a fixed % against the original 108 shares, it was agreed that 10% offered influence, but did not pose a barrier to external investment.  It also allowed the Supporters Trust to purchase shares without self harm, which they did.

I'd disagree with your head over heart view...on the grounds that shares should be seen as capital investment, and not to meet running costs...which has been the case on more than a few occasions!  If you use the £1.225m as being representative of the fans capital investment, then that's actually 30% against the 4,000,000 (ish) shares currently issued....so at 10%, the fans have already been more than generous in facilitating additional investment over the years by taking the equivalent of an £800k+ 'hit'!

Edited April 4 by CaleyD

[Charles Bannerman]

47 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

I wasn't looking to split hairs and had read your '...a fixed 10% in any vote...' as meaning that if 1 million votes were cast, the trust would have 100,000....or 10% of whatever the voting count was in any particular instance.  Just wanted to clarify that wasn't how it works.

The Supporters Trust came into being in 2005, but I believe the voting right, when held by the members club, was at or around the 50% mark at one point.  The original formula use to calculate that right was changed...and it was that new formula that meant that if the Members Club...or subsequently the Supporters Trust...bought any more shares, their voting right decreased.

When the decision was made to do away with the formula and set a fixed % against the original 108 shares, it was agreed that 10% offered influence, but did not pose a barrier to external investment.  It also allowed the Supporters Trust to purchase shares without self harm, which they did.

I'd disagree with your head over heart view...on the grounds that shares should be seen as capital investment, and not to meet running costs...which has been the case on more than a few occasions!  If you use the £1.225m as being representative of the fans capital investment, then that's actually 30% against the 4,000,000 (ish) shares currently issued....so at 10%, the fans have already been more than generous in facilitating additional investment over the years by taking the equivalent of an £800k+ 'hit'!

I think that the difference here is that the £1.225M was invested even before the first financial collapse in 1999 and was effectively rendered worthless then, since the quid pro quo for that debt being made to disappear was that Tullochs became owners of the stadium (which they then gifted back some years later). The same goes for the £564,000 from the 1996 share issue. Most (I believe around £330,000) of that came from Ian Fraser and its plunge in value is reflected in the fact that Sandy Catto (allegedly) bought Ian Fraser’s shares for a song, possibly as little as 20p each. Pretty well all the rest of that issue came from the hundreds of fans who typically took a £250 stake. They never expected to see their money back again even before it was rendered worthless in 1999.

In 1994, Thistle and Caley both voted to invest their assets in ITandC. That company has subsequently messed up twice and has been bailed out once, and now hopefully for a second time. It’s difficult therefore to justify that original £1.225M (and indeed the proceeds of the 1996 issue) having any value at all now. Looking at it another way, it appears that Ross Morrison has waived his entitlement to £1.6M secured on the stadium and this will be a vital component if a deal is eventually arrived at with respect to the current embarrassment. It would therefore be difficult to justify the survival of an investment that has gone though not one but two such collapses. That’s not an outcome that I would like to see, but so much of other people’s money has gone down the swanney since the 1990s (I can make a case for £15M) that the conclusion appears inescapable.

[CaleyD]

If the AS proposal was to return all shares to the club so they could be resold, then I'd be more inclined to agree.  That would put everyone on an equal footing in regards to zeroing out previous share purchases/acquisitions.  AS could then purchase £800k worth to put that money into the club, and others could also invest directly.

As the only shareholder at that point, he'd have 100% control.  If others wanted to invest, they would then get a say in proportion to their investment.

However, what AS is trying to do is get control of all 4 million shares for £800k via an external company.  He then seems to want people to invest in that external company, which gives them no direct shareholding in the club itself...and no guarantee any investment even makes it to the club.

I don't like the smell of that.

[big cherly]

On 4/3/2025 at 3:10 PM, CaleyD said:

.AS did not hand pick BDO, they were the ONLY insolvency firm willing to take us on.

Not the case. AS said clearly who he hoped (ie wanted) to be appointed when the club stated they would be applying for administration.  By extension this means getting an idea of how long and how much by paying the fee. Call it a chat over a meal and glass of wine if you like. The message and signal to others is not to bother putting their name forward.

On 4/3/2025 at 3:10 PM, CaleyD said:

Doesn't matter who's paying BDO,

Aye Ok!   Monkey and organ grinder. 
 

bc

Edited Saturday at 07:20 AM by big cherly

[+snorbens_caleyman]

8 hours ago, CaleyD said:

However, what AS is trying to do is get control of all 4 million shares for £800k via an external company.  He then seems to want people to invest in that external company, which gives them no direct shareholding in the club itself...and no guarantee any investment even makes it to the club.

Has he actually said that he wants people to invest in FC Inverness (his company)?  I can't remember seeing that... but there's been so much.

I was wondering if there were any tax advantages through owning shares via a company rather than personally.  I came across Business Asset Disposal Relief, which could potentially reduce the amount of CGT that you pay on disposal of assets.  (If they have increased in value, of course!)

There may be other things - I thought of limited liability, reduction in dealing/transfer costs when transferring shares/the company, corporation tax vs higher rates of income tax, etc.  But I just don't know because it's not my field and I've never been in that position.

Anyone know?

[CaleyD]

2 hours ago, big cherly said:

Not the case. AS said clearly who he hoped (ie wanted) to be appointed when the club stated they would be applying for administration.  By extension this means getting an idea of how long and how much by paying the fee. Call it a chat over a meal and glass of wine if you like. The message and signal to others is not to bother putting their name forward.

Aye Ok!   Monkey and organ grinder. 
 

bc

You need to listen to the Bryan Jackson episode of the Wyness Shuffle podcast.

[CaleyD]

2 hours ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

Has he actually said that he wants people to invest in FC Inverness (his company)?  I can't remember seeing that... but there's been so much.

I was wondering if there were any tax advantages through owning shares via a company rather than personally.  I came across Business Asset Disposal Relief, which could potentially reduce the amount of CGT that you pay on disposal of assets.  (If they have increased in value, of course!)

There may be other things - I thought of limited liability, reduction in dealing/transfer costs when transferring shares/the company, corporation tax vs higher rates of income tax, etc.  But I just don't know because it's not my field and I've never been in that position.

Anyone know?

Not directly, but he has said that he hopes being out of administration would encourage others to make a financial contribution.  There was talk of needing £1.8 million to get to end of next season.

If FC Inverness own all the shares, then the only way for someone else to get in on the game is to invest in FC Inverness or buy shares from them.

AS has said he wants total control, so I don't envisage him selling pockets of shares.

It's just another thing that doesn't properly add/line up at present.

[LisleRightPeg]

I won’t pretend to fully understand all the ins and outs of AS proposal but to give him full control with no fan shares doesn’t sit well with me. Surely fans having ownership through shares can foster a stronger connection to the club, promoting community engagement and financial stability, while also aligning the club's interests with those of its supporters. 
 

* Edit I’m truly grateful for his support 

Edited Saturday at 11:11 AM by LisleRightPeg

[Charles Bannerman]

1 hour ago, LisleRightPeg said:

I won’t pretend to fully understand all the ins and outs of AS proposal but to give him full control with no fan shares doesn’t sit well with me. Surely fans having ownership through shares can foster a stronger connection to the club, promoting community engagement and financial stability, while also aligning the club's interests with those of its supporters. 
 

* Edit I’m truly grateful for his support 

If I were to be a Devil’s Advocate for a moment, I would point out that Alan Savage is CURRENTLY the only game in town and has said he’s happy to stand aside if another option comes along. And (as I’ve said variously before) this club, since 1994, has suffered two insolvency events despite having had a ballpark £15 million of other people’s money given to it. Is it therefore realistic for those associated with it to expect any further concessions from anyone?

(End of Devil’s Advocacy)

[Scotty]

5 hours ago, LisleRightPeg said:

Surely fans having ownership through shares can foster a stronger connection to the club, promoting community engagement and financial stability, while also aligning the club's interests with those of its supporters. 

It does. 

I am one of those people who wrote off my paltry £250 investment the day I made it. I never expected any profit, dividend, or influence in the decision-making process, it was simply a way to own a bit of "my" club. At AGMs, most were boring and uncontentious, so you simply voted to confirm whatever the board were suggesting. I can think of only a handful that ended in any form of vote where you actually had to debate and make a decision. In return I felt obligated to do my part and gave the club thousands of hours for free in IT/Web support, website design stuff etc. and where expenses were incurred, the club was asked to cover it at cost, no profit involved. We were in it together.  

The biggest thing for me was - at some point - to transfer the shares to my son who is the next generation of ICT fan and who I hope will have that same connection to the club and city despite not being born in Inverness. Owning a piece of that club, even if it is 0.0000625% is a part of that, along with timing our visits (where possible) to coincide with the football season and making sure we can get to a few games, restock at the club shop, and generally fill up his ICT cup so to speak. He loved meeting the players when he was a mascot, he loved chatting with - as he puts it - "Ryan Christie's dad", getting on the pitch while Tommy C said I could not, holding various cups thanks to Kenny Cameron, CaleyD and Davie Balfour, and he loved training with the players on the kid's day at the stadium a couple of times. He's got all the Real Madrid gear, all the Toronto FC gear, but he still goes off to school proudly wearing his ICT puffer jacket (which we bought in multiples sizes a few years ago)... His ICT top (another we bought in multiple sizes) will get pulled out again once the weather is better, and if and when the black strip ever becomes available, we may just have to grab a few of these too (including one for dad). 

None of this adds up to the financial backing that a single one of our chairmen has probably ever done, but multiply it by a lot of shareholders and the value soon becomes apparent. If we can't retain our personal shares, then that's another reason why I personally feel we must protect the Supporters Trust. It may be the only way to have a voice, however quiet and minority in scale. 

[CaleyD]

Having taken a look at the Articles of Association for Inverness Caledonian Thistle Trust Ltd (not the supporters trust), there are very tight restrictions on who they can pass the 792k shares they hold to, how and why.  Another obstacle to the AS offer conditions.

[CaleyCanary]

This thread really demonstrates why I’d never have been any good in the business world - can’t get halfway through reading a post before I descend into a Homer Simpsonesque donut moment… 

[+CaleyHedgehog]

Me too, CaleyCanary.

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

16 hours ago, CaleyD said:

Another obstacle to the AS offer conditions.

That said, do you have a solution to our problems that does not involve some complexity? From a personal point of view I would accept BDO going public on Friday and advising that AS had been appointed preferred bidder and between them they were working frantically to get the club out of administration by the end of April, 2025 assuming that is possible.

[CaleyD]

3 hours ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

That said, do you have a solution to our problems that does not involve some complexity? From a personal point of view I would accept BDO going public on Friday and advising that AS had been appointed preferred bidder and between them they were working frantically to get the club out of administration by the end of April, 2025 assuming that is possible.

Complex solutions are possible, what we're dealing with in the terms attached to the AS offer is the impossible.

The solution I would like to see is also far from complex, but it would be possible....

All shares over 250 reduced to that level...this allows everyone who already has shares to keep a token 'ownership' in the club.  All other ordinary shares returned to the club and cancelled.  Ordinary shares are then reclassified to have no voting rights.

3 new shares are created. 2 with 49% voting right and one with a 2% voting right....I'll come back to this.

All those who are writing off debt, handing over large shareholdings etc. form a 'Board of Investors/Trustees'...this could possibly sit under the existing football trust umbrella...which would be useful for tax purposes.  The purpose of this group will be to find/bring in capital investment, essentially building up a pot of money which can be used to drip feed income to the club and/or for any capital expenditure.  They could also be responsible for developing additional income streams.

The strength in this idea is that all directors are equal.  Any ego flexing/competition between them to bring in the most money doesn't have the club being used as a pawn in the game.

A separate management board is formed and contains people with the skills necessary to oversee the running of a football club in a more day to day fashion....e.g. people with a background in finance, marketing, business development, community engagement, fan/customer engagement, player recruitment, medical etc.

Someone could conceivably sit on both boards.

This setup means we have qualified people making the decisions and not just those with most cash/influence.

Back to the 3 shares mentioned above...

1 of the 49% shares is held by the Board of Investors/Trustees.

1 of the 49% shares is held by the club sponsor in return for their investment, but is then surrendered/passed on when that changes.

The 2% share is held by the Supporters Trust.

This means that fans always have the final say on any big decisions.

It's not a perfect setup, and it would certainly be challenging to get it going, but I believe it's the best way to bring everyone together and give the club the best chance at long term viability and growth.

[Pele_Is_God]

I have no idea how this all works so basically the Administrators will call a Press Conference to announce they've accepted Savage's offer.

If they don't accept do they just set another deadline for other buyers to come forward?

[+old caley girl]

Just now, Pele_Is_God said:

I have no idea how this all works so basically the Administrators will call a Press Conference to announce they've accepted Savage's offer.

If they don't accept do they just set another deadline for other buyers to come forward?

There is no way deadline can be met imho

[STFU]

I was at the point of accepting the club was all but gone almost a year ago when all the Kelty stuff was going on and I'm starting to get to that point again.

Talks from Savage doing this to give back to the city have turned into demands for total control and being answerable to nobody. It was people who believed they should be answerable to nobody that got us into this mess.

[Scotty]

21 hours ago, CaleyD said:

The solution I would like to see is also far from complex, but it would be possible....

All shares over 250 reduced to that level...this allows everyone who already has shares to keep a token 'ownership' in the club.  All other ordinary shares returned to the club and cancelled.  Ordinary shares are then reclassified to have no voting rights.

<cut>

3 new shares are created. 2 with 49% voting right and one with a 2% voting right...

• 1 of the 49% shares is held by the Board of Investors/Trustees.
• 1 of the 49% shares is held by the club sponsor in return for their investment, but is then surrendered/passed on when that changes.
• The 2% share is held by the Supporters Trust.

This means that fans always have the final say on any big decisions.

It's not a perfect setup, and it would certainly be challenging to get it going, but I believe it's the best way to bring everyone together and give the club the best chance at long term viability and growth.

I kind of like the simplicity of this. Unfortunately, can't see it happening as it could spiral into complication quite easily ....

Would whoever bails us out accept that they are bailing out 100% of the club and only getting 49% in return? The 'sponsor' would then need to be quite considerable if we place the same sort of value on their 49% compared to what the investor(s) paid or continue to pay. Can we attract that level of sponsorship on a yearly basis? or is it the case that the sponsorship voting rights would become further fragmented if we have two or more 'major' sponsors? I guess that could be doable given that the overall total would be 49%. Finally, would a sponsor or major investor try to influence the remaining 2% in some way, so they are guaranteed 51%? 

As simple as the suggestion is, and I do still like the idea of simple, I can see too many pitfalls 

 

[CaleyD]

3 hours ago, Scotty said:

I kind of like the simplicity of this. Unfortunately, can't see it happening as it could spiral into complication quite easily ....

Would whoever bails us out accept that they are bailing out 100% of the club and only getting 49% in return? The 'sponsor' would then need to be quite considerable if we place the same sort of value on their 49% compared to what the investor(s) paid or continue to pay. Can we attract that level of sponsorship on a yearly basis? or is it the case that the sponsorship voting rights would become further fragmented if we have two or more 'major' sponsors? I guess that could be doable given that the overall total would be 49%. Finally, would a sponsor or major investor try to influence the remaining 2% in some way, so they are guaranteed 51%? 

As simple as the suggestion is, and I do still like the idea of simple, I can see too many pitfalls 

Fair questions/points.

The board of Trustees is an idea designed to attract those who value the clubs long term football and community goals over ownership and outright control, so it won't be for everyone. The Board of Trustees would be taking on a true stewardship role.  Also, what we're looking at here is a mechanism that looks beyond their own pockets in bringing money to the club.  If they want to look at hotels, concerts, battery storage, or whatever, then that doesn't distract from running the club as we have a management board taking care of that side of things.

At the moment any sponsor gets name on the shirt, a bit of marketing and goodwill.  Maybe the opportunity for a bit of influence on how their financial support is used might appeal to a much wider audience and increase the sponsorship value.  They absolutely might want to influence the 2% in some way, but so might the Board of Trustees... that's the beauty of it.  If either of those two want to do something and they're not in agreement, then they need to convince the fans it's a good idea.

It would be something held by a main sponsor only and not split/shared with minor sponsors.

Also, the major constitutional issues would need agreement across the board as 51% wouldn't be able to carry such a vote.

At the moment we have a situation where if someone (a sponsor, or whoever) wants influence, they make a one off acquisition of shares.  Under this setup, one of those 49% shares is bringing in new income every year.

Part of the reason we've run into trouble is that we've previously sold shares to meet shortfall in operational income.  This helps avoid that scenario by attaching regular income to that influence instead of a one off payment.

It would have to be well written into the clubs articles, and there would need to be protections in place across all 3 groups, but that's doable.  It's not dissimilar to setups in place in other countries.

I'm not suggesting it's a perfect or bulletproof setup, but I do think it's miles ahead of what we have at the moment with fewer pitfalls, and some healthy inbuilt protection.

As the old adage goes...if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got

[Scotty]

As I said, I like the overall idea. The beauty of it is the simplicity, but that simplicity could also be its downfall as the danger is that it leaves potential loopholes if someone did want to try and exploit things. Would have to be all wrapped up really tightly in watertight articles and rules.

Regardless - something like this would not be doable within the timeframe AS proposed so add me to the list of people worried about what happens next. I am happy to give him a lot of leeway as I have said, but uncomfortable with the 100% thing.