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

[Satan]

A lot of conclusions being jumped to there.

22 minutes ago, big cherly said:

It’s been a masterclass so far from AS for me.
# Managed to offload the people he wanted (main inept individuals responsible for the plight).

SG had to go before Alan got involved, Munro and Panos jumped ship.

# Position them to take the bulk of the criticism and flak. 

They didnt have to be positioned,  they did that themselves.

# Corral the remaining board members and stakeholders to get behind the Admin route. 

What have the stakeholders to say, if anything,  we havent heard a peep from them.

# Limited attendance to Mondays meeting to a controlled audience. (Keep the dissent to a min).

Like we can afford to hire a big venue !?

# Pre prime the attendees with the agenda (forward thinking debate only).

We would have been there for days with all the retrospective questions that couldve been asked

# Steer the conversation towards support for the admin route. 

Apart from possible investment what else was on the agenda?

# Entice people the carrot of potential investors in the background to take a piece of the action once Admin is settled.

Logical progression I suspect.

 

[Scorrie]

8 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I remain concerned about this document - a charge filed with Companies House in January, suggesting that the large sums loaned by Ross Morrison have security such as the stadium and car parks, which could hence be called in on failure to pay.

I asked questions at last night’s meeting which seemed to elicit the answer that, despite various statements that this had/ hadn’t/ had etc been written off, the £3.4M was still very much owed, although administration had the scope to cancel this. The answer from the top table indicated that these loans would be converted to shares, but I’m still not clear as to whether the stadium is in any remaining danger of being “claimed” if this gets messy.

Any arrangement with a “Right… if you can’t pay, I’m having the stadium” potential - which this Charge appears to say - has got to be a worry, and I’m not sure if even Alan Savage has a full answer to that yet.

Charles, this is very concerning and disappointing to hear that it was not addressed at the meeting. This needs immediate attention, as the club is heading towards potentially losing the stadium again!! There’s no chance Mr. Morrison will give up an asset for shares.

His floating charge over all property, assets, and future rights secures his loan, giving him a legal claim on current and future assets. If the club defaults (which it will), the floating charge will crystallise, letting him take control and sell the assets (the stadium) to recover his loan. The negative pledge prevents the club from offering other creditors priority over him.

In short, Mr. Morrison has safeguarded his loan, (which he has a right to do) ensuring he's first in line if the club faces financial trouble. However, such a momentual decision must have been documented in board meetings, and everyone should have been made aware of the potential repercussions! OMG!! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Charles Bannerman]

21 minutes ago, Scorrie said:

Charles, this is very concerning and disappointing to hear that it was not addressed at the meeting. This needs immediate attention, as the club is heading towards potentially losing the stadium again!! There’s no chance Mr. Morrison will give up an asset for shares.

His floating charge over all property, assets, and future rights secures his loan, giving him a legal claim on current and future assets. If the club defaults (which it will), the floating charge will crystallise, letting him take control and sell the assets (the stadium) to recover his loan. The negative pledge prevents the club from offering other creditors priority over him.

In short, Mr. Morrison has safeguarded his loan, (which he has a right to do) ensuring he's first in line if the club faces financial trouble. However, such a momentual decision must have been documented in board meetings, and everyone should have been made aware of the potential repercussions! OMG!! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scorrie… I felt that Alan may have slightly ducked my question, but on the other hand there are possibly aspects here to which even he so far has no answer. He may have slightly deflected what by necessity was a complex question by making a bit of a joke about that complexity, but in essence what I was trying to say was:- 1 - since August we have had three or four contradictory versions of whether this £3M of debt is active or has been written off by the lenders. Which is it? And if it hasn’t then 2 - there’s this document lodged with Companies House that seems to allow Ross Morrison to walk away with his pick of the club’s assets in lieu of repayment, so is stadium ownership in danger?  3 - what specifically is the status of the car parks element of these assets here, And 4 - would any of this threat disappear on administration?

The answers I seemed to get were 1 - yes, the club is still liable. 2 - I didn’t feel I got clarity on that. 3 - there seems to be some horrendously complicated arrangement involving ICT Properties which an Administrator would establish and 4 - the debt might well disappear on admin on the basis of the claim that these loans were apparently not capital sums but contributions to day to day running costs.

This one, for me, is still rolling.

[+Northern_jaggie]

The thing that irks me most about the meeting was the response to the question over the fans donations to the crowdfunding campaign.

It was stated that the funds will be used for running costs, but administration is all but inevitable. Therefore the funds will be lost and won’t be able to contribute to a positive cause (save ICT??), why ask fans to contribute when even Alan Savage is saving his money for the administration process? 

Basically I dont think it’s a ‘Save ICT’ fund at all. The crowd fund should be ring fenced and used when we reincarnate. 

[Scotty]

2 hours ago, big cherly said:

Is it? Yes, like Charlie, he’s a pal of AS and both have been sheltered under the AS umbrella. Neither mentioned by any players dumped, but take from it what want! It’s a free world. 
It’s been a masterclass so far from AS for me.
# Managed to offload the people he wanted (main inept individuals responsible for the plight).
# Position them to take the bulk of the criticism and flak. 
# Corral the remaining board members and stakeholders to get behind the Admin route. 
# Limited attendance to Mondays meeting to a controlled audience. (Keep the dissent to a min).
# Pre prime the attendees with the agenda (forward thinking debate only).

# Steer the conversation towards support for the admin route. 
# Entice people the carrot of potential investors in the background to take a piece of the action once Admin is settled.

So far well executed and going to a well thought out plan in my view. It will hurt the individuals most where AS wants to hurt them. I’ll declare my hand by wanting AS to succeed. The next few months will be interesting watching how the cards fall! 

For me, it is, as I have had good interactions with Graeme over the years, but I accept that others may have a different perspective.  

Your scenario does make sense although a simpler explanation would be that he did indeed get rid of the inept individuals who were correctly blamed and put pressure on those left behind to remove the wool from their eyes. After the audit it seems obvious he is now managing expectations of both the board and the fans who wanted to see someone (other than Makwana) ride in on a white steed and save us. The £300K issue quickly became £900K and is now £1.6m per year. Barring the aforementioned single rider, then we are likely looking at the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, and administration is likely the only way to get out from under the shadow of these decisions made over the last few years. 

The real explanation - like the assertion that there are always 3 sides to any story - are likely somewhere in the middle. Like you I want AS to succeed, because if he does, then ICT still exists, and the thought that it might not doesn't fill me with any sort of joy. With likely close to £1m in the game by the time he has paid the administrators (as promised) then I am prepared to give him more latitude than some, especially as he has previously been chairman and main sponsor of the club. He has got skin in this game and is the only one with any significant financial clout that came forward to try and sort this mess out. 

 

[+Fraz]

Can anyone explain what the point of Gordon Fyfe is? Sat looking like Joe Biden as in he might dose off. Then comes to life with a rapturous speech about the great work of the Community Trust, which has absolutely fk all to do with the issues of the club. Also him being the one as far as I can recall who's been there throughout this shambolic downfall yet never answered a damn thing. 

[IBM]

19 minutes ago, Fraz said:

Can anyone explain what the point of Gordon Fyfe is? Sat looking like Joe Biden as in he might dose off. Then comes to life with a rapturous speech about the great work of the Community Trust, which has absolutely fk all to do with the issues of the club. Also him being the one as far as I can recall who's been there throughout this shambolic downfall yet never answered a damn thing. 

If I remember right when he was appointed he had vast experience in the press and public communications, being an ex Caley player and past president of the Inverness Golf Club he had a lot to offer the club as a board member.  I had hoped for better communication from the club but that didn't happen it was the same old thing like drawing hens teeth and he was the SLO but no one got any replies to emails, a bit like Scott Gardiner .  Not really sure what he has brought to the club I can't think of anything!

[ScottMacScott]

31 minutes ago, Fraz said:

Can anyone explain what the point of Gordon Fyfe is? Sat looking like Joe Biden as in he might dose off. Then comes to life with a rapturous speech about the great work of the Community Trust, which has absolutely fk all to do with the issues of the club. Also him being the one as far as I can recall who's been there throughout this shambolic downfall yet never answered a damn thing. 

As PR man by trade, and tasked to run the clubs PR machine he has utterly failed. As a Director, well, like all on watch, a failure too.  

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

Gordy only publishes good news stories. By that I mean that within every bad news story there will always be a smidgen of good news that gets priority. 

[+DoofersDad]

2 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Scorrie… I felt that Alan may have slightly ducked my question, but on the other hand there are possibly aspects here to which even he so far has no answer. He may have slightly deflected what by necessity was a complex question by making a bit of a joke about that complexity, but in essence what I was trying to say was:- 1 - since August we have had three or four contradictory versions of whether this £3M of debt is active or has been written off by the lenders. Which is it? And if it hasn’t then 2 - there’s this document lodged with Companies House that seems to allow Ross Morrison to walk away with his pick of the club’s assets in lieu of repayment, so is stadium ownership in danger?  3 - what specifically is the status of the car parks element of these assets here, And 4 - would any of this threat disappear on administration?

The answers I seemed to get were 1 - yes, the club is still liable. 2 - I didn’t feel I got clarity on that. 3 - there seems to be some horrendously complicated arrangement involving ICT Properties which an Administrator would establish and 4 - the debt might well disappear on admin on the basis of the claim that these loans were apparently not capital sums but contributions to day to day running costs.

This one, for me, is still rolling.

Definitely rolling for me too.

Two of the questions I put to the Supporters Trust list  were as follows:-

Can the club explain what the implications for the administration process are of the Charges Mr Morrison and Mr Munro have lodged against the Club at Companies House.  If the debts payable to these 2 cannot be paid, will the assets detailed in the Charges become the legal property of Morrison and Munro or does the administration process invalidate the charges?

Mr Morrison and Mr Cameron are the sole directors of ICT Battery Storage Ltd.  They together with Mr Munro are the shareholders.  However, the Companies House records list the Club as a "person with significant control" with the right to remove or appoint directors, to have 75%+ voting right and to have 75%+ of shares.  So if we go into administration, would the administrators have the power to take back control and effectively include the Battery company as an asset of the club which might then be sold to a third party to help pay other debts?

I was unable to attend the meeting but I have now had the chance to watch the video.  Whilst the points in my questions weren't specifically addressed, it appeared to me that Alan Savage was confident that the administration process would deal satisfactorily with the outstanding debt.  There also seemed to be confidence that should the Battery appeal be won, money to the club will follow.  I don't share that confidence on either point.

The document regarding the floating charges lodged at Companies House seems to me to suggest that the charges would automatically be enforced should the Club initiate the Administration process.  I am simply a layman in these matters but if the charges were to be put into effect, that would mean that the assets of the club become the property of Morrison.  Clearly Alan Savage know far more than I do about these things and he seems confident in the process, but nevertheless, it would be good to get some expert clarity on how the wording on these various documents impact on the administration process.  

It is worth noting that Morrison's colleagues on the Board presumably would all have had to agree to the conditions in the Charge document as a condition of Morrison making the loan.  All 3 of the current Board members should, therefore be able to clarify exactly what the implications of this document are.  In particular, Scott Young was the Director who signed the document agreeing to the terms on behalf of the Board. 

Hopefully the Supporters Trust will be following up with the club and seeking answers to any pertinent questions which weren't fully answered at the meeting.

[Yngwie]

21 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Mr Morrison and Mr Cameron are the sole directors of ICT Battery Storage Ltd.  They together with Mr Munro are the shareholders.  However, the Companies House records list the Club as a "person with significant control" with the right to remove or appoint directors, to have 75%+ voting right and to have 75%+ of shares.  So if we go into administration, would the administrators have the power to take back control and effectively include the Battery company as an asset of the club which might then be sold to a third party to help pay other debts?.

That one is just an admin failure on the part of whoever deals with Companies House filings for the battery co. When the battery co issued shares to its 3 new owners, it should have notified Companies House that the football club is no longer a person of significant control.

[CaleyCiuin]

9 hours ago, Fraz said:

Can anyone explain what the point of Gordon Fyfe is? Sat looking like Joe Biden as in he might dose off. Then comes to life with a rapturous speech about the great work of the Community Trust, which has absolutely fk all to do with the issues of the club. Also him being the one as far as I can recall who's been there throughout this shambolic downfall yet never answered a damn thing. 

Perhaps trying to justify his position.

[bdu98196]

8 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

It is worth noting that Morrison's colleagues on the Board presumably would all have had to agree to the conditions in the Charge document as a condition of Morrison making the loan.  All 3 of the current Board members should, therefore be able to clarify exactly what the implications of this document are.  In particular, Scott Young was the Director who signed the document agreeing to the terms on behalf of the Board.

Not sure you'd get the clarity unfortunately if the meeting was anything to go by, as it appears the kudos of being part of the board was greater than the desire for the responsibilities it brought IMO.

[Starscape]

I've been a trustee before. I didn't get involved in the financial side. I'd have briefings but my main interest was of a technical nature for the sector we were involved in. I would imagine directors would be similar. Bennett was probably there for his footballing specialism, rather than finance. You may think he did a bad job there but I doubt it's a case of everyone being knowledgeable about finance. That's why there are multiple directors.

[ClickbaitProponent]

13 hours ago, Scorrie said:

Charles, this is very concerning and disappointing to hear that it was not addressed at the meeting. This needs immediate attention, as the club is heading towards potentially losing the stadium again!! There’s no chance Mr. Morrison will give up an asset for shares.

His floating charge over all property, assets, and future rights secures his loan, giving him a legal claim on current and future assets. If the club defaults (which it will), the floating charge will crystallise, letting him take control and sell the assets (the stadium) to recover his loan. The negative pledge prevents the club from offering other creditors priority over him.

In short, Mr. Morrison has safeguarded his loan, (which he has a right to do) ensuring he's first in line if the club faces financial trouble. However, such a momentual decision must have been documented in board meetings, and everyone should have been made aware of the potential repercussions! OMG!! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or it was part of the gameplan. Employ SG and crash the club. Reap the rewards. People keep saying that Ross was a fan and he would never do it but he is also a businessman and just another pig at the trough. I would rather torch the stadium than let him get his hands on it. It does certainly look like more and more like a deliberate act.

[STFU]

29 minutes ago, Starscape said:

I've been a trustee before. I didn't get involved in the financial side. I'd have briefings but my main interest was of a technical nature for the sector we were involved in. I would imagine directors would be similar. Bennett was probably there for his footballing specialism, rather than finance. You may think he did a bad job there but I doubt it's a case of everyone being knowledgeable about finance. That's why there are multiple directors.

You don't have to be a financial expert to look at a set of accounts and know that 7 figure negative numbers are a bad thing.

[caley100]

Very bad and worrying times!  Can't help thinking that administration and part time football has been the aim for a while despite the bluff by AS,  because in reality there will not be queues of business men willing to throw 3 or £4m just to pay off debts!

Big Stu, Bronson and Johndo will be turning in their graves.

[+Fraz]

2 hours ago, CaleyCiuin said:

Perhaps trying to justify his position.

His position with the Community Trust has nothing to do with his position on the ICT board though and absolutely nothing to do with the financial situation we're in. Just looked like a massive deflection to me. 

[Yngwie]

4 hours ago, Starscape said:

I've been a trustee before. I didn't get involved in the financial side. I'd have briefings but my main interest was of a technical nature for the sector we were involved in. I would imagine directors would be similar. Bennett was probably there for his footballing specialism, rather than finance. You may think he did a bad job there but I doubt it's a case of everyone being knowledgeable about finance. That's why there are multiple directors.

And none of them seem to have had a financial background. I think it is always a good idea for a board to have someone suitably qualifiied, responsible for reporting and scrutinising the financial position and cash forecasts, as well as ensuring proper governance.

[Charles Bannerman]

4 hours ago, caley100 said:

Very bad and worrying times!  Can't help thinking that administration and part time football has been the aim for a while despite the bluff by AS,  because in reality there will not be queues of business men willing to throw 3 or £4m just to pay off debts!

Big Stu, Bronson and Johndo will be turning in their graves.

I wouldn’t go as far as the word “aim” in the context of an actively preferred outcome. However I would be surprised if it hasn’t for some time been pretty clear to anyone with a full insight into the figures that administration is inevitable, so dire are the headline numbers that are being made public. As for part time football, again I wouldn’t look on this as an aim but as an inevitable consequence of administration.

[CaleyCiuin]

2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

And none of them seem to have had a financial background. I think it is always a good idea for a board to have someone suitably qualifiied, responsible for reporting and scrutinising the financial position and cash forecasts, as well as ensuring proper governance.

There is a Club accountant who must have had to process all the outgoing payments. Surely the accountant should have raised the alarm to the board if one person was spending more money than was in the accounts. As guilty as the rest of them for not challenging the CEO over years!!!!!

[highlandexile]

6 hours ago, Fraz said:

His position with the Community Trust has nothing to do with his position on the ICT board though and absolutely nothing to do with the financial situation we're in. Just looked like a massive deflection to me. 

To be fair, somebody in the room had asked what would happen to the community trust should the football club go into administration.  

But he did milk his moment to talk about the community trust and completely ignored anything to do with his 7 years on the football board.

[+MrCaleyjag]

3 hours ago, CaleyCiuin said:

There is a Club accountant who must have had to process all the outgoing payments. Surely the accountant should have raised the alarm to the board if one person was spending more money than was in the accounts. As guilty as the rest of them for not challenging the CEO over years!!!!!

I'm presuming you know that this is fact and that they were as culpable? I'm also presuming you know as a fact that said person didn't challenge the CEO or others?

If you do know that for a fact then I agree with your last statement.

However, hearing the way that the CEO ran the club along with the complete lack of transparency of anything from within the club plus the cloak and dagger approach of the inner workings of the club, under the past CEO, is it not a more tangible thought that the club accountant was overruled, not listened to and told what to do?

Or simply, those above the club accountant or similar position kept burying their heads in the sand.

Maybe we shouldn't hang so many people so easily unless we know the facts.

I know people want answers and the likelihood is they won't come but the blame falls firmly at the feet of the board members at the time and the CEO. 

Edited October 9, 2024 by MrCaleyjag
Added a bit

[CaleyCiuin]

15 minutes ago, MrCaleyjag said:

I'm presuming you know that this is fact and that they were as culpable? I'm also presuming you know as a fact that said person didn't challenge the CEO or others?

If you do know that for a fact then I agree with your last statement.

However, hearing the way that the CEO ran the club along with the complete lack of transparency of anything from within the club plus the cloak and dagger approach of the inner workings of the club, under the past CEO, is it not a more tangible thought that the club accountant was overruled, not listened to and told what to do?

Or simply, those above the club accountant or similar position kept burying their heads in the sand.

Maybe we shouldn't hang so many people so easily unless we know the facts.

I know for a fact the club has an accountant. I know for a fact that an additional accountant was brought in from Orion Group to assist this person. I accept that challenges may have been made to the previous CEO or that person didnt feel able to do so. The original accountant and the one from Orion have an office in the club. 

[+MrCaleyjag]

2 minutes ago, CaleyCiuin said:

I know for a fact the club has an accountant. I know for a fact that an additional accountant was brought in from Orion Group to assist this person. I accept that challenges may have been made to the previous CEO or that person didnt feel able to do so. The original accountant and the one from Orion have an office in the club. 

That wasn't my point, I'm not doubting the above regards an accountant role.

I'm asking if you know for a fact the club accountant didn't challenge the CEO?

If you don't know that for a fact or only accept they may have, then you can't throw accusations around like your last statement.

Blame the board and the CEO.