Ferguson gone, who is next (List of Admin cuts)

[Yngwie]

23 minutes ago, PullMyFinger said:

"Against All Odds - Armageddon"

Makwanageddon!

[Scotty]

4 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Makwanageddon!

"Against All Odds - The decline and resurrection of ICT in a phygital universe" , nahh, maybe a bit too short and snappy a title ... Makwanageddon it is then  

 

 

[DWH]

4 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I think, even at this stage, it’s a bit risky even to be implying criminality in general and by any individual in particular. The administrator was asked about possible criminality and, in a very circumspect answer, did seem to imply that, should any emerge, it would be followed up.

The administrators have a statutory duty to report to the relevant government department on all directors in the preceding 3 years : it is then up to the govmt (Insolvency Service) to decide whether to apply to have any director to be disqualified for up to 15 years.

Civil proceedings are also possible (wrongful / fraudulent trading).

Watch this space....................

[Council Juice]

5 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I think, even at this stage, it’s a bit risky even to be implying criminality in general and by any individual in particular. The administrator was asked about possible criminality and, in a very circumspect answer, did seem to imply that, should any emerge, it would be followed up.

Can the claim libel based on someone's "gut feeling of something say going on"?

Be a stretch that.

The club hasn't been well run. Well run businesses do not accrue this much debt needing hair brained get rich schemes to bail them out.

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

Given the losses that the club have made and the qualifications that have been made to ICT FC's Annual Accounts over the pass few years it is quite possible that there are legitimate questions the Administrator's will ask.

Bear in mind that at the beginning of July 2024 the Board was confident that the Company was a going concern:

The independent auditor's report was unqualified. The name of the Senior Statutory Auditor who signed the audit report on 3 July 2024 was Paul Capewell, who signed for and on behalf of A9 Accountancy Limited.

 

Included within the audit report is a material uncertainty relating to Going Concern:

"We draw attention to note 1.2 in the financial statements which indicates that the company incurred a net loss before tax of £588,053 for the year ended 30 May 2023 and, as of that date, the company had net liabilities of £125,816 and net current liabilities of £2,160,442. As stated in note 1.2, these events or conditions, along with other matters as set forth in note 1.2 indicate that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Our opinion is not modified in respect of this matter.

 

We understand that the Directors have taken action to pursue new investment (additional details are provided at note 1.2). In the meantime, we understand that the Board of Directors are confident that the company can meet its financial commitments as they fall due.

In auditing the financial statements, we have concluded that the directors' use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate.

Our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the directors with respect to going concern are described in the relevant sections of this report."

Senior Statutory Auditor:

Paul Capewell

Statutory Auditor:

A9 Accountancy Limited

Date of audit report:

3 July 2024

 

 

 

[Charles Bannerman]

12 hours ago, Council Juice said:

Can the claim libel based on someone's "gut feeling of something say going on"?

Be a stretch that.

The club hasn't been well run. Well run businesses do not accrue this much debt needing hare brained get rich schemes to bail them out.

 I wouldn’t want to take my chances on court with a smart brief doing his best to persuade the judge that what had been said or written was a specific allegation rather than a gut feeling or non-specific innuendo. And if matters do move in a certain direction, I’d suggest that discretion is the better part of valour when posting here and elsewhere.

[big cherly]

8 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

 I wouldn’t want to take my chances on court with a smart brief doing his best to persuade the judge that what had been said or written was a specific allegation rather than a gut feeling or non-specific innuendo. And if matters do move in a certain direction, I’d suggest that discretion is the better part of valour when posting here and elsewhere.

I’m sure SG Lawyers will, quite rightly, be scrutinising every piece of media shows and paper quotes by AS, CC and previous board members to use in any legal action. Grassa and others must be wondering what emails, minutes of meetings and records SG has to pull up from the past. Be interesting to see what SG comes up with in way if any facts supporting his action.

[IBM]

26 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

 I’d suggest that discretion is the better part of valour when posting here and elsewhere.

Good point there Charles you never know who might be looking on here. 

[+DoofersDad]

2 minutes ago, IBM said:

Good point there Charles you never know who might be looking on here. 

I definitely agree that discretion is the better part of valour, particularly when the person who is threatening you has more money to spend on lawyers than you do.  Threats of legal action are often made to intimidate people and to stop others from making information public which shows the person up in a bad light.  Such behaviour therefore often reflects a recognition by the person making the threats that there is plenty of such information which could be revealed.  Of course, it is also true that some people are subject to malicious and unfounded allegations.  In those cases, legal action is more likely to be taken without being preceded by the threat of it. 

[+Moogthurso]

Very much agree that the most crooked people tend to have the deepest pockets and the sharpest lawyers. 

 

I AM SURE absolutely no one involved in the club over the last 5 years could be characterised as this.

 

Thoroughly incompetent divisive malicious evasive and egotistical may be more easily and safely attributed though.

 

 

 

[ClickbaitProponent]

1 hour ago, IBM said:

Good point there Charles you never know who might be looking on here. 

Good point. In that case I will bite the bullet ... Scott Gardiner is an absolute bellend of the highest order! Do your worst Scott! I can see the court roll now ... Scott Gardiner vs Me (with my 2000 witnesses) lol

[The Mantis]

33 minutes ago, ClickbaitProponent said:

Good point. In that case I will bite the bullet ... Scott Gardiner is an absolute bellend of the highest order! Do your worst Scott! I can see the court roll now ... Scott Gardiner vs Me (with my 2000 witnesses) lol

Ah but I see you covered yourself by referring to somebody else with a different name

[Scotty]

Haven't had to do this for a long time... But time to add the customary disclaimer and remind site users that they are responsible for whatever they post.

Through access to lawyers via Rivals.Net, SportNetwork and our very own Kingsmills before he passed, it has been established that our duty of care for the site is not to stifle opinion or discussion nor to act as back seat lawyers but to remove anything we see as clearly abusive, defamatory, or libelous. We are not lawyers so we rely on common sense, and our community of users to act as a gauge as to what is permissible. We have followed that rule for 30 years and will continue to do so using our robust, tried and tested reporting process that allows registered users to flag up content to us that they see as objectionable in some fashion. External users not registered to the site can also use the same process to make us aware of anything we may not have already seen. 

Ultimately, we are a platform for users to express their personal opinions, and it is the users who are responsible for what they post so if we miss something or it is not reported, then the user is responsible for their own content. This has been established under both UK and Scots law with cases a few years ago citing social media posts. Having said that, we can and will deactivate accounts that are, in our opinion, setup to be purposely abusive or troublemaking or may expose the site to risk. 

From a privacy perspective, we do respect the right of all members to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Outside of the site admins, no-one has access to user details that are not public, nor do we give out anyone's account information, email or other details without their explicit consent. The police can request this information as part of a criminal investigation but require a court order to do so. In our 30 years online, this has never happened. There are no other circumstances where we would provide that information to a third party without explicit consent of the user or a relevant legal document that compels us to do so.  

 

[ClickbaitProponent]

17 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Haven't had to do this for a long time... But time to add the customary disclaimer and remind site users that they are responsible for whatever they post.

Through access to lawyers via Rivals.Net, SportNetwork and our very own Kingsmills before he passed, it has been established that our duty of care for the site is not to stifle opinion or discussion nor to act as back seat lawyers but to remove anything we see as clearly abusive, defamatory, or libelous. We are not lawyers so we rely on common sense, and our community of users to act as a gauge as to what is permissible. We have followed that rule for 30 years and will continue to do so using our robust, tried and tested reporting process that allows registered users to flag up content to us that they see as objectionable in some fashion. External users not registered to the site can also use the same process to make us aware of anything we may not have already seen. 

Ultimately, we are a platform for users to express their personal opinions, and it is the users who are responsible for what they post so if we miss something or it is not reported, then the user is responsible for their own content. This has been established under both UK and Scots law with cases a few years ago citing social media posts. Having said that, we can and will deactivate accounts that are, in our opinion, setup to be purposely abusive or troublemaking or may expose the site to risk. 

From a privacy perspective, we do respect the right of all members to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Outside of the site admins, no-one has access to user details that are not public, nor do we give out anyone's account information, email or other details without their explicit consent. The police can request this information as part of a criminal investigation but require a court order to do so. In our 30 years online, this has never happened. There are no other circumstances where we would provide that information to a third party without explicit consent of the user or a relevant legal document that compels us to do so.  

 

Legally speaking:

An insult or vulgar abuse is not considered to be defamatory, this is because it is not likely to lower the estimation of the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society.

 

I think Scott Gardiner is a bellend. I am entitled to my opinion. The above clause means that I am legally entitled to my opinion without fear of litigation. To be fair I would be hard pressed to lower the estimation of the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society due to the fact the right thinking members of society are most likely to agree with me, and in order to reach the lows that he has reached would take some serious doing on my part to lower them further than they already are.

[Satan]

Scot Gardiner.

One T.

Scott Kellacher.

Two T's.

Carry on.

Edited October 25, 2024 by Satan

[buckett]

4 minutes ago, Satan said:

Scot.

One T.

Carry on.

Wasn't that the safety net?

 

[Satan]

18 minutes ago, buckett said:

Wasn't that the safety net?

 

Until Scott  Gardiner initiates legal action.

[STFU]

Can I have just the one T

[ClickbaitProponent]

15 hours ago, Satan said:

Scot Gardiner.

One T.

Scott Kellacher.

Two T's.

Carry on.

Apologies. Scot - one T with two LL's in BELLEND - got ya!

[Scotty]

ok, lets get back on topic please

[CaleyCanary]

…gave us a well needed laugh though Scotty 

[tm4tj]

Adam Brooks has signed for Queen of the South

Flynn Duffy joined Airdrie

Wallace Duffy 3 year deal at Strathspey Thistle 

[STFU]

Near the end. Anything is better than Inverness.  What a ***.

 

[+old caley girl]

7 minutes ago, STFU said:

Near the end. Anything is better than Inverness.  What a ***.

 

I think he means the weather? But good riddance 

[STFU]

How would he know? He literally disappeared during the summer.