Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
30 minutes ago, STFU said:

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

Don't hold your breath STFU ! 

Posted

Noting the discussion on the validity or otherwise of RM's floating charge.  The issue  probably relates not so much to the Companies Act, but to the Insolvency Act 1986, and would hinge on whether the loan by RM to the club was made prior to the charge being granted.  If, for example, the loan was made in October 2023, and RM did not take his floating charge from the club until the reported date of 20 December 2023, the validity of the charge would be challengeable under section 245 (avoidance of certain floating charges):

"Subject as follows, a floating charge on the company’s undertaking or property created at a relevant time is invalid except to the extent of the aggregate of—

(a)the value of so much of the consideration for the creation of the charge as consists of money paid, or goods or services supplied, to the company at the same time as, or after, the creation of the charge,

(b)the value of so much of that consideration as consists of the discharge or reduction, at the same time as, or after, the creation of the charge, of any debt of the company, and

(c)the amount of such interest (if any) as is payable on the amount falling within paragraph (a) or (b) in pursuance of any agreement under which the money was so paid, the goods or services were so supplied or the debt was so discharged or reduced."

 

 

 

  • Thoughtful 1
Posted
4 hours ago, IcyT said:

Noting the discussion on the validity or otherwise of RM's floating charge.  The issue  probably relates not so much to the Companies Act, but to the Insolvency Act 1986, and would hinge on whether the loan by RM to the club was made prior to the charge being granted.  If, for example, the loan was made in October 2023, and RM did not take his floating charge from the club until the reported date of 20 December 2023, the validity of the charge would be challengeable under section 245 (avoidance of certain floating charges):

"Subject as follows, a floating charge on the company’s undertaking or property created at a relevant time is invalid except to the extent of the aggregate of—

(a)the value of so much of the consideration for the creation of the charge as consists of money paid, or goods or services supplied, to the company at the same time as, or after, the creation of the charge,

(b)the value of so much of that consideration as consists of the discharge or reduction, at the same time as, or after, the creation of the charge, of any debt of the company, and

(c)the amount of such interest (if any) as is payable on the amount falling within paragraph (a) or (b) in pursuance of any agreement under which the money was so paid, the goods or services were so supplied or the debt was so discharged or reduced."

 

 

 

The administrator wasn’t very specific when he volunteered the notion that the Charge may not be valid, but he did seem to imply that the issue had something to do with timescales.

Posted

It seems certain that much of what he loaned would have come before the security was put in place.

He'd still have a claim it just means he wouldn't get paid ahead of other creditors.

Whilst good for other creditors I'm not seeing that it does anything to improve the clubs financial position or prospects of sale/investment.

Posted
7 minutes ago, STFU said:

Whilst good for other creditors I'm not seeing that it does anything to improve the clubs financial position or prospects of sale/investment.

If the security is valid, Ross Morrison has first shout on the stadium - which he could then add to his joint ownership with David Cameron of the lease of the land surrounding it.

If it’s not valid, then the extent of his control over the club’s premises would be greatly diluted since he just becomes another punter along with the other creditors.

Posted

Let's imagine RM is two people. His loyalty as a Director is 100% to the football club company.  The Administrator will check that he was compliant in that respect because if he was not, and ran up debts of say nearly £4m whilst claiming his company was solvent, is quite serious and can lead to disqualification. This would have serious consequences for him.  The Administrator will want to satisfy himself that this was the case. Given that the other RM was on the other side is potentially difficult to defend.

Now lets look at the other RM and check why he acted the way he did.  Given that he was a Director and Chairperson of the football club Company what legitimate argument can he put up that shows his negotiations with the first RM was fair and equitable and did not put the Going Concern position at serious risk ? 

 

  • Thoughtful 1
Posted
20 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

If the security is valid, Ross Morrison has first shout on the stadium - which he could then add to his joint ownership with David Cameron of the lease of the land surrounding it.

If it’s not valid, then the extent of his control over the club’s premises would be greatly diluted since he just becomes another punter along with the other creditors.

That's not correct.

1. A floating charge places him ahead of unsecured creditors, but behind preferential creditors (and secured creditors, but we don't have any of them).

2. It only entitles him to the proceeds of the sale of assets after higher ranking priorities have been satisfied.

Under no scenario is he simply handed the stadium.

 

20 hours ago, STFU said:

Whilst good for other creditors I'm not seeing that it does anything to improve the clubs financial position or prospects of sale/investment.

It doesn't, but the administrator is legally bound to check all these things out.

The catch 22 is that if RM is going to get less from any sale of the club/assets as a result of the floating charge being invalid, then he may look to make up the shortfall in any agreement he considers for the car parks.

  • Agree 1
  • Thoughtful 1
Posted
1 hour ago, CaleyD said:

That's not correct.

1. A floating charge places him ahead of unsecured creditors, but behind preferential creditors (and secured creditors, but we don't have any of them).

2. It only entitles him to the proceeds of the sale of assets after higher ranking priorities have been satisfied.

Under no scenario is he simply handed the stadium.

 

It doesn't, but the administrator is legally bound to check all these things out.

The catch 22 is that if RM is going to get less from any sale of the club/assets as a result of the floating charge being invalid, then he may look to make up the shortfall in any agreement he considers for the car parks.

And you have to wonder how hard a bargain he will drive on the car parks?

  • Agree 1
Posted
3 hours ago, CaleyD said:

That's not correct.

1. A floating charge places him ahead of unsecured creditors, but behind preferential creditors (and secured creditors, but we don't have any of them).

2. It only entitles him to the proceeds of the sale of assets after higher ranking priorities have been satisfied.

Under no scenario is he simply handed the stadium.

 

It doesn't, but the administrator is legally bound to check all these things out.

The catch 22 is that if RM is going to get less from any sale of the club/assets as a result of the floating charge being invalid, then he may look to make up the shortfall in any agreement he considers for the car parks.

Because he has priority over unsecured creditors, the floating charge, if it remains valid, must presumably put Ross Morrison in a strong position to hold out for his £1.65 million, should he wish to do so.

Posted
1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Because he has priority over unsecured creditors, the floating charge, if it remains valid, must presumably put Ross Morrison in a strong position to hold out for his £1.65 million, should he wish to do so.

After preferential creditors (HMRC, employees (or ex), administrator etc.) are paid, then a valid floating charge would be paid before anyone else.

If the floating charge is deemed invalid, he'd get the same pence in the pound level as other non secured creditors.

His percentage of the debt is such that he could vote down any CVA, and he'd be able to do that regardless of the floating charge.  He may do that if he thinks liquidation would produce more than any offered investment/purchase used to fund a CVA.

Posted

There is no mention on the Club site, but the Courier is reporting on their website that  Andrew Benjamin, Maggie's Highlands fundraising manager, is leaving that role to become the Club's Commercial Business Manager.  It would seem to me that the Administrators must be fairly confident of a positive outcome to the Administration process to be making such an appointment at this time.

  • Like 2
  • Thank You 1
Posted
On 1/16/2025 at 8:51 PM, CaleyD said:

After preferential creditors (HMRC, employees (or ex), administrator etc.) are paid, then a valid floating charge would be paid before anyone else.

If the floating charge is deemed invalid, he'd get the same pence in the pound level as other non secured creditors.

His percentage of the debt is such that he could vote down any CVA, and he'd be able to do that regardless of the floating charge.  He may do that if he thinks liquidation would produce more than any offered investment/purchase used to fund a CVA.

Agreed!

Posted

I wonder if those who've just purchased Dunfermline were one of the interested parties here?

Dunfermline with ambitions to be Scotland's version of Moneyball it would seem.

Posted (edited)

After pretty much grinding to a halt a couple of months ago, the ICT Go Fund Me got a £20,000 donation last week, the second one for that value.

Many thanks, Anonymous!

Edited by Yngwie
  • Like 8
Posted

Patience is a virtue I’m lead to believe. As we head towards Feb I have to say I’m burning closer to the bottom of my patience candle. Understand we have to sit tight and hope/trust this time we get a better owner and board than the previous past 10 years.
Know the admin and short list of preferred interested buyers are crunching through the numbers and get-into-the-black operating algorithms. 
I believe DBO we’re looking to be in a position to make some sort of an announcement or update in Feb. 
Hope it the first half of the month. A good turn out by the fans and a win against QoTS would only help with any discussions.

bc

Posted

I was just going to ask @Charles Bannerman if he has any idea when we might get an announcement on the latest info press conference from the administrator bloke because I also recalled end of January, into February being the date they hoped to be able to be in a position to have found a preferred bidder etc.  

Weirdly enough, especially when fans know how impatient I can be (🤣), I am actually not as impatient as you sound @big cherly because I have the added distraction of the 6 Nations all throughout February going into the start of March so I'll be too engrossed in that 😁, I will keep updated on our scores through Twitter etc and commenting on the Facebook post once I get a minute after Scotland matches or at half time of the games kicking off at 1645.

Posted
1 hour ago, big cherly said:

A good turn out by the fans and a win against QoTS would only help with any discussions.

Getting ourselves up to 8th spot would also be a significant landmark. If we can remain in the current division then financially we are more attractive. Without -15 points we would be at the right end of the table under SK and next season with a -5 point deduction perhaps it could be more successful ....  

  • Agree 3
Posted

I’m working on the basis that when the Administrator has something significant to update fans on then there will be a statement. Until that happens, we know the Administrator will be working hard to take things forward.

The meeting between the Administrator and Morrison was to take place in January, so has probably happened. It may well be that further discussions are taking place between them.

Unfortunately we really have no option but to trust the process and wait for an update.

Meantime we at least have entertaining football in the pitch to enjoy.

Roll on Saturday!

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Posted
17 hours ago, Scotty said:

Getting ourselves up to 8th spot would also be a significant landmark. If we can remain in the current division then financially we are more attractive. Without -15 points we would be at the right end of the table under SK and next season with a -5 point deduction perhaps it could be more successful ....  

I’d be more than happy to finish 8th this year but I’m quite confident we may do better than that. I’m also confident that despite starting with a 5 point deficit we’ll achieve that promotion to the Championship next season.

Quite a change in my perceptions in such a short time - before admin and Kells I thought we were surely doomed.

  • Like 2
Posted

I don't really see that our performance on the pitch will have much baring on our administration situation. Prize money between the leagues below the SPL isn't that great and there's not game changing money between each of them.

Trying not to get worried about it and just enjoy the football but the longer it drags on the less easy I feel.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Posted
22 hours ago, CaleyTennis85 said:

I was just going to ask @Charles Bannerman if he has any idea when we might get an announcement on the latest info press conference from the administrator bloke because I also recalled end of January, into February being the date they hoped to be able to be in a position to have found a preferred bidder etc.  

Weirdly enough, especially when fans know how impatient I can be (🤣), I am actually not as impatient as you sound @big cherly because I have the added distraction of the 6 Nations all throughout February going into the start of March so I'll be too engrossed in that 😁, I will keep updated on our scores through Twitter etc and commenting on the Facebook post once I get a minute after Scotland matches or at half time of the games kicking off at 1645.

Sorry, CT - I have absolutely no information to update about anything. However as I write, I’m not getting the feeling that we are now outwith any timescale that the Administrator may have implied at the December briefing.

I would just add that the flurry following the Jan 8th Companies House posting was probably much ado about nothing and probably just a bogstandard procedural thing.

I remain convinced that Cameron and Morrison, as joint owners of the car park lease and respective creditors to the extent of £410K and a secured (or maybe not as secured as he thought) £1.65M,  are the two main players in this and the biggest potential obstacles.

  • Thoughtful 1
Posted

I'm getting worried that nobody wants to buy us. Hoping for a miracle in the next few weeks.

  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, STFU said:

I don't really see that our performance on the pitch will have much baring on our administration situation. Prize money between the leagues below the SPL isn't that great and there's not game changing money between each of them.

Trying not to get worried about it and just enjoy the football but the longer it drags on the less easy I feel.

Pretty much agree STFU what you’re saying regarding prise money outwith the SPL is buttons. That said the Championship has a few ‘bigger’ teams (if I can call them that), that brings along more decent size away supporter, eg Patrick, Falkirk & Dunfermline. Helps with modest increase of income and fans riling each other. 
Can’t think of any team this season bringing more than 100 away fans. 
bc

Edited by big cherly
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Gringo said:

I'm getting worried that nobody wants to buy us.

To be honest, it's difficult to see why anyone would want to buy a small, lowly Scottish league club miles from most places, which can't possibly sustain itself through football income alone.  Unless you are rich and daft enough to put a seven-figure sum into it every season.

So then you have a look to see what other possibilities there might be.  Makwana was a fantasist, of course, but some of his ideas indicate the thinking that's needed.  And then you run into problems about change of use of the land, so the council would have to be involved, and that would take more time. 

Who knows?  All that may be happening now.

And, without going back and checking, hasn't Savage talked about him leading a consortium being a way forward?  Which would also take time to set up.

  • Agree 3

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy