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

[STFU]

The thought of our remaining three directors conduct talks with potential investors over the future of the club fills me with fear. These are some of the same people who wanted to hand the keys to Makwana.

[Pele_Is_God]

So Savage wants Administration, this Investor isn't interested if we are going into admin. Have I got that right?

[Scotty]

1 minute ago, Pele_Is_God said:

So Savage wants Administration, this Investor isn't interested if we are going into admin. Have I got that right?

I think there are more subtexts here (including brinksmanship about signing over the debts as mentioned way back at the start of this process) ... but essentially, reading the article yes, that's about it. The businessperson is willing to put in 1.2m for 50.45% of the club. This might get us to the end of season. What happens after that? We can't really judge that unless we know who it is. Are we comfortable with giving a controlling stake in the club for that amount of money that will see us limp to the end of the season and then require another 3 or 4 mil to survive next season ... 

Personally, I really don't know what offer or person is best for the club. I just know I want my club to come out the other side, still existing, still in Inverness, and with a sustainable business model in place. If that means it takes 10+ years to reach the Premiership or the top end of the Championship then so be it.    

[big cherly]

14 minutes ago, STFU said:

The thought of our remaining three directors conduct talks with potential investors over the future of the club fills me with fear. These are some of the same people who wanted to hand the keys to Makwana.

I would expect (and hope) AS holds the reins for whatever these individuals do regarding the club’s future. 

[+old caley girl]

39 minutes ago, big cherly said:

I would expect (and hope) AS holds the reins for whatever these individuals do regarding the club’s future. 

I think a battle of egos may be in process 

[+Northern_jaggie]

Got to entertain the investor, the points deduction from administration will see us relegated so at the very least we will be a league higher next season if we make it to the end of this one with the investor. Maybe Savage wants administration to take full control afterwards, but he hasn’t said that explicitly if I’m right.

[Council Juice]

12 hours ago, RiG said:

Part 1 - https://archive.is/xTktB
Part 2 - https://archive.is/jWHQW
Part 3 - https://archive.is/OO6MR
 

   

"Listen, Scot Gardiner could be a big pain in the arse, but he was the best I could find."

if that is not the most damning thing to come out of a (former) chairman's mouth IDK.

Gardiners complete lack of remorse or willingness to take any accountability for the dire straits that a business he ran for half a decade is beyond the pale.

Also this talk about him being liked at Dundee etc. I'm certain their fans hated him too. Warned us even.

4 hours ago, Scotty said:

People are likely sick of me mentioning TFC but its where I get my footie fix on a regular basis and however bad the team play, the owners are masters at squeezing every dollar out of you that they can so perhaps we can take something that works here, reduce the scale and make it work for ICT.   At TFC most of the concessions rent their spaces and the club makes money regardless of whether they make a profit or not. There must be 200+ different concession stands to choose from at BMO Field.  The ST has given the sports bar a lick of paint and a bit of a refresh which is great. Things like this to enhance the matchday experience are a good place to start. Small incremental improvements are all we can do at this stage. Could we replace the really bad sausage roll window with something better? Maybe food trucks in the open corners? We charge them a flat fee, initially a low amount, but review regularly based on the level of crowds we get. If the average gate goes up, then within the contract it is stipulated that so does the concession fee as there are more potential customers. Fans win as competing outlets will usually try to either cook the best food or have reasonable prices and there may be more variety than carbon-dated sausage rolls and pies.

If we can find a way to lease/rent out certain aspects of the matchday experience then this - to me - is the way to go. Season tickets are effectively a lease as the STH lease their seats for a year and the club gets the money whether you go or not. Concession rental as suggested is another. Are there other areas of the matchday that could be monetised? Could the 50-50 draw go online? At TFC I can use their app at home to buy a 50-50 ticket even if not going to the match. Does our ticketing system have any way to do something like this? Just throwing out a few ideas - which may or may not be realistic - but at worst, I just get told its a silly idea.          

A Toronto game vs Red Bull NY (4-1 loss) was one of the most miserable experiences of my life. That wind coming off the lake in early spring towards the main stand is biting. And there's little in the way of shelter. Felt like a 1-0 loss at Clyde all those years ago.  

But to your point, the idea of renting out concessions - perhaps to local business with food trucks seems like an obvious no brainer. 

 

[Council Juice]

D day is upon us.

People noted and questioned earlier what the 200k would get us and I always saw it as a bid to buy time to get us a way out. I don't think it was ever expected we could do it in perpetuity. 

It seems admin is the only viable option at this point. One can hope it allows us to rise again and at some point push up the leagues free of the huge financial woes the club has accrued.

The fact the SFL kept the 15pt deduction post covid should rankle. They should have been aware that it was a possibility that the pandemic would push clubs to the brink and struggle to recover after amassing debts.

[+CaleyHedgehog]

3 minutes ago, Council Juice said:

The fact the SFL kept the 15pt deduction post covid should rankle.

The SFL will be delighted to banish us as far down as possible - we're not central beltish enough for them.

[big cherly]

1 hour ago, old caley girl said:

I think a battle of egos may be in process 

Don’t trust any of them! 

[Scotty]

1 hour ago, Council Juice said:

"Listen, Scot Gardiner could be a big pain in the arse, but he was the best I could find."

if that is not the most damning thing to come out of a (former) chairman's mouth IDK.

I thought that too. 

 

1 hour ago, Council Juice said:

Also this talk about him being liked at Dundee etc. I'm certain their fans hated him too. Warned us even.

Yup. I do seem to recall this. 

1 hour ago, Council Juice said:

A Toronto game vs Red Bull NY (4-1 loss) was one of the most miserable experiences of my life. That wind coming off the lake in early spring towards the main stand is biting. And there's little in the way of shelter. Felt like a 1-0 loss at Clyde all those years ago.  

Yup, it feels like The Caledonian Stadium down by the lake in early March when the temperature can drop to -20 or -30!!! Other than money which they have loads of, there are lots of parallels with ICT, not least the sporadic periods of success followed by longer periods of absolute mediocrity but thats what happens when you support your local team rather than glory hunt, I guess. I think that was the game (2022?) where Lewis Morgan scored a hat-trick and also had one disallowed. He always plays well here for some reason. I watched that from the comfort of my front room. couldn't even give my tickets away for free for that one   

[+DoofersDad]

Gardiner "I take no interest in the views of disgruntled people who ultimately failed at their jobs.  So why are you threatening lawyers' letters left, right and centre then, Scot?  

[Scotty]

8 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Gardiner "I take no interest in the views of disgruntled people who ultimately failed at their jobs.  

no interest in his own views either then? 

[STFU]

When asked by The Press and Journal to sum up Gardiner’s time with Caley Thistle, Morrison said: “Was he perfect? 100% no.
“Are you perfect? I’m not, not a chance, I couldn’t run a football club."

 

We learned that the hard way.

[Charles Bannerman]

3 hours ago, Scotty said:

... and this year's panto would definitely have its classic villain. 

I don’t suppose Eden Court could be approached with suggestions of one or two (non actionable) gags?

[+snorbens_caleyman]

1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I don’t suppose Eden Court could be approached kmljwith suggestions of one or two (non actionable) gags?

It's Jack and the Beanstalk this year, so selling us out for a bag of beans would seem to fit the bill.

Edited October 16, 2024 by snorbens_caleyman

[Charles Bannerman]

15 hours ago, Scotty said:

The businessperson is willing to put in 1.2m for 50.45% of the club. This might get us to the end of season. What happens after that? We can't really judge that unless we know who it is. Are we comfortable with giving a controlling stake in the club for that amount of money that will see us limp to the end of the season and then require another 3 or 4 mil to survive next season ... 

That’s the aspect that I can’t get to grips with. OK… it’s said that the mystery Blue Black and Red Knight would be prepared to follow up “their” £1.2M with more, but £1.2M is chickenfeed compared with the other numbers involved, such is the depth of the club’s financial mire. It’s going to cost £1.6M even to get to the end of the season; debts sit somewhere between £3.4 and £3.8M; and to acquire a controlling interest could cost up to £6.1M… bringing the grand total potentially to over £11M. And then there’s the question of future losses.

The £6.1M takeover figure is what would have to be bought in new shares in order to top the combined total of 4.9 million existing shares and the ST’s fixed 10%. On the other hand if “they” were able to persuade some existing shareholders to part with what they have cheaply, that would reduce.

I’m struggling to see how this bid, which I believe is the one the board took just two hours to reject before, can be made to stand up unless there’s a very big rabbit waiting to jump out of the hat.

[+EvilWhiteStripe]

I assume that we are going to be getting some news today either way?

[+old caley girl]

14 minutes ago, EvilWhiteStripe said:

I assume that we are going to be getting some news today either way?

I read there is a board meeting tomorrow 

[caley100]

13 minutes ago, EvilWhiteStripe said:

I assume that we are going to be getting some news today either way?

The board are seemingly meeting on Friday to discuss the bid(s) that are supposedly on the table.

However as Charlie says the £1.2m offer is really chicken feed and is obviously based on directors / ex directors et all giving up their loans as Alan Savage stated would happen.

[big cherly]

33 minutes ago, caley100 said:

The board are seemingly meeting on Friday to discuss the bid(s) that are supposedly on the table.

However as Charlie says the £1.2m offer is really chicken feed and is obviously based on directors / ex directors et all giving up their loans as Alan Savage stated would happen.

Your going to get the Mahwanas and there like throwing wild offers in at a fire sale level. AS is right to just hold his (and what remains of the board) nerve. 

[+Tree]

1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

That’s the aspect that I can’t get to grips with. OK… it’s said that the mystery Blue Black and Red Knight would be prepared to follow up “their” £1.2M with more, but £1.2M is chickenfeed compared with the other numbers involved, such is the depth of the club’s financial mire. It’s going to cost £1.6M even to get to the end of the season; debts sit somewhere between £3.4 and £3.8M; and to acquire a controlling interest could cost up to £6.1M… bringing the grand total potentially to over £11M. And then there’s the question of future losses.

The £6.1M takeover figure is what would have to be bought in new shares in order to top the combined total of 4.9 million existing shares and the ST’s fixed 10%. On the other hand if “they” were able to persuade some existing shareholders to part with what they have cheaply, that would reduce.

I’m struggling to see how this bid, which I believe is the one the board took just two hours to reject before, can be made to stand up unless there’s a very big rabbit waiting to jump out of the hat.

You keep assuming that shares would be purchased at 'face value' as part of acquiring a controlling interest. It is much more likely that there will be an offer price at much less than this value on the basis that the shares in effect become worthless if administration/liquidation is the alternative. Any deal would presumably look to right down or restructure debt also.

Still needs a thump of cash.

Setting aside the initial capital/securities requirement, the essential element of any future path is having a strategy for management of the club to avoid reoccurence of the same issues at some point down the road. This needs a bit of vision but also much greater governance than seems to have been taking place over the past years .

[STFU]

22 minutes ago, Tree said:

You keep assuming that shares would be purchased at 'face value' as part of acquiring a controlling interest. It is much more likely that there will be an offer price at much less than this value on the basis that the shares in effect become worthless if administration/liquidation is the alternative. Any deal would presumably look to right down or restructure debt also.

Still needs a thump of cash.

Setting aside the initial capital/securities requirement, the essential element of any future path is having a strategy for management of the club to avoid reoccurence of the same issues at some point down the road. This needs a bit of vision but also much greater governance than seems to have been taking place over the past years .

I agree with all you say but there are insufficient shares available to purchase without them being sought from those who already own them and the board cannot give any guarantee on acquiring those to provide the 50.45% (nearer 56% when you factor in the supporters trust voting right).

Put simply it's not an offer the board are able to accept even if they wanted to unless they already have written agreement on transfer of shares from existing shareholder/s to a new investor.

[+snorbens_caleyman]

4 minutes ago, STFU said:

I agree with all you say but there are insufficient shares available to purchase without them being sought from those who already own them and the board cannot give any guarantee on acquiring those to provide the 50.45% (nearer 56% when you factor in the supporters trust voting right).

Put simply it's not an offer the board are able to accept even if they wanted to unless they already have written agreement on transfer of shares from existing shareholder/s to a new investor.

They had accepted a similar offer from Makwana, and at that time we all speculated on how they could do it.  One theory was that maybe they could issue more shares, to be acquired by the new buyer, thus diluting the holdings of existing shareholders.  But it wasn't clear to us if they had the power to do so, and also if they had to offer the new shares to existing shareholders as well or indeed first.

[+EvilWhiteStripe]

Club Statement

"The board can confirm that the time for any interested parties to offer for the Club has come and gone. We are currently looking at our position and will make an announcement in the coming days"

More purgatory I guess.