New Beginning

[+DoofersDad]

My concerns about a new stadium would be the size.  If it makes good financial sense to move to the UHI site, then we need a stadium which will accommodate the likely crowds  should  we find ourselves in the top flight at some stage.  There is no reason why we shouldn't, and If league reconstruction increases the number in the top flight, it would be an even more likely scenario.  Even in the 2nd tier, we can expect bigger crowds for cup games from time to time.  I hope that when AS talks about a smaller ground, he is referring to the footprint of the stadium.  A stadium with the same capacity, but with a steeper rake and without all the wasted space between the pitch and the front row of seats would both take up a smaller footprint and provide for a better view and a much better atmosphere.  

Having a much more fan friendly and atmospheric stadium could be a significant factor in attracting more people to come to games and then to persuade them to come more regularly.  The Supporters Trust's Matchday Survey highlighted several factors about our current ground which were felt to be poor.  Fans responding to the survey came up with a wide range of ideas to make the matchday experience better.  So, whether we stay or move, I would urge the future management team to have a good look at the survey and build in some of the ideas to future plans.  Alan, Charlie, in case you haven't seen the survey, you can find the fans' views here.

 

[+CaleyD]

We've only ever sold out the current stadium once, and even in 2014/15 season our average was below 5000, so I'm not sure that maintaining the current capacity should be a priority.

Feels a bit like buying a 6-bedroom house for your family of 3 because your Aunt and her family come to stay once every couple of years.

[Charles Bannerman]

This, to shareholders, arrived by email at 1300 today.

If you have lost your share certificate in the intervening 29 years this, apparently, won’t be a problem.

Edited April 15 by Charles Bannerman

[Charles Bannerman]

22 hours ago, CaleyD said:

We've only ever sold out the current stadium once, and even in 2014/15 season our average was below 5000, so I'm not sure that maintaining the current capacity should be a priority.

Feels a bit like buying a 6-bedroom house for your family of 3 because your Aunt and her family come to stay once every couple of years.

Maintaining current capacity most definitely isn’t a priority, but saving operating costs most definitely is, so much of the spectator capacity surely needs mothballed?

I was never sure why they went, I think initially, to 7200 in 2005 when the SPL had retreated as far as 6000 from their previous nonsensical 10,000. As I recollect, 6000 was only really exceeded during earlier visits of the Old Firm and even these high points dropped away within a few years.

I think it was the West Stand that lifted it to 7500.

[+CaleyD]

1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

This, to shareholders, arrived by email at 1300 today.

If you have lost your share certificate in the intervening 29 years this, apparently, won’t be a problem.

Does the stock transfer form contain any caveats stating that if Alan Savage doesn't get the required number of shares, and as a result pulls his offer, that the transfer will not be executed?

[Charles Bannerman]

49 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

Does the stock transfer form contain any caveats stating that if Alan Savage doesn't get the required number of shares, and as a result pulls his offer, that the transfer will not be executed?

Yes. There’s a reference on the second page of the letter which I didn’t have time screenshot earlier, although the caveat refers only to the CVA.

 

Edited April 15 by Charles Bannerman

[Satan]

4 hours ago, CaleyD said:

Does the stock transfer form contain any caveats stating that if Alan Savage doesn't get the required number of shares, and as a result pulls his offer, that the transfer will not be executed?

Yes, you may keep the certificate of ownership of shares in a liquidated club.

[CaleyCanary]

I’ve not had an email so I expect/hope it’s heading my way via snail mail 

edit: now I’ve read your attachment properly Charles I can see it’s coming in the post -like being back at school and not reading the question properly

Edited April 15 by CaleyCanary

[+DoofersDad]

16 hours ago, CaleyCanary said:

I’ve not had an email so I expect/hope it’s heading my way via snail mail 

edit: now I’ve read your attachment properly Charles I can see it’s coming in the post -like being back at school and not reading the question properly

Got the email yesterday and the formal letter in the post this morning. 

[Scotty]

Got the email yesterday, form is in the post I assume. Disappointing, but necessary unfortunately.

I kinda like the idea that CaleyD had though. Perhaps in future, currently existing shareholders who give up their shares can be given some form of non-voting or commemorative share to signify the 30 years of shareholding. Most of us have them as a sense of belonging or connection to the club rather than for any influence over decisions. The reality is that very few decisions - if any until now - have ever hinged on the voting power of individual small shareholders. A few large shareholders and the board have dictated pretty much every decision overt the last 30 years, both good and bad ...  

 

[+CaleyD]

17 hours ago, Satan said:

Yes, you may keep the certificate of ownership of shares in a liquidated club.

I've seen enough twists and turns in agreements, etc. involving ICTFC over the years to know that anything can happen, and it's best to ensure that everything is watertight and not make assumptions.

FWiW, I don't think there will be any insurmountable issue in either the CVA or getting sufficient shares...

Assuming Ross Morrison is considered an unsecured creditor, his vote will carry the CVA as the total of all others can't block it.  If it's not, then (very sadly) trade creditors will fear backlash from football fans who are not exactly renowned for seeing the picture beyond what's "good" for their club!!!

The share thing is fairly straightforward as well.

Even if the Supporters Trust don't agree to hand over their shares, then AS only needs 85% of all other shares, and this is achievable.  The top 40ish shareholders hold about 90% of the shares!  This would carry the 75% required in a vote to remove the voting right from the articles.  It's then only a short hop to the 90% needed to kick start the squeeze out and enforce handing over the remainder of shares....if he so desired.  In reality, once at 85%, the Supporters Trust's voting rights become meaningless, and it may be good PR not to go after it.

I still believe the Supporters Trust need to hold an EGM to allow members their say.  I don't expect members would prevent handing over the shares and voting rights if needed, but doing things the wrong way for the right reasons is not acceptable because it erodes the same checks and measures that may be required to prevent people from doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons in future.

There may be some alternative routes needed for handing over the football trust shares, but again, there are legitimate ways around that.

I'm not a fan of what is being done, or how it is being done, but I see no point in people being deliberately awkward.  I don't see enough people with enough shares, and minded to try and prevent it, on the shareholders' list.  What's more, any additional time lost or money spent on administrators, solicitors, etc., is only going to hurt the club further going forward.

I've attached a shareholders list, with percentages, for anyone interested in poking through it.  This is based on the most recently publicly available list of shareholders, so don't come at me with any GDPR nonsense, please!

ICTFC Shareholder Anlaysis.pdf

[Scotty]

 

I see a few people on there who I know have passed - Big Stew, Johndo, Ian Broadfoot, Bill McAllister to name just a few. As these are not listed as "executors of estate of <name>" how does this get handled? 

 

[givmeaccccc]

In complete agreement with Scottie's suggestion about some kind of commemorative share or similar. Looking at the number of shareholders shows the goodwill and enthusiasm that was generated all those years ago, despite many of us having divided loyalties about the merger.

[+snorbens_caleyman]

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

 

I see a few people on there who I know have passed - Big Stew, Johndo, Ian Broadfoot, Bill McAllister to name just a few. As these are not listed as "executors of estate of <name>" how does this get handled?

Well, I've just wasted an hour looking for an answer to this    General answer is that if assets are discovered after an estate has been closed, the estate is re-opened and its value recalculated, because there could be tax implications and so on.

In this case, though, the asset is valueless, in monetary terms.  But I can't see any simple way in which the company (club) can cancel them.  Nor do I think that someone could simply write in and say "I'm snorbens' heir - you can have them."   As far as I can see, there has to be a properly-authorised legally-recognised personal representative of the deceased before anything at all can be done.

OTOH, this must happen all the time, so there must be well-trodden ways of dealing with it.  I'm sure that someone here can tell us.

[Charles Bannerman]

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

 

I see a few people on there who I know have passed - Big Stew, Johndo, Ian Broadfoot, Bill McAllister to name just a few. As these are not listed as "executors of estate of <name>" how does this get handled? 

 

There are bound to be several who have died, especially since most of these shareholders would have bought their allocation 30 years ago, and many would have been middle aged even then.

In theory, the deceased’s Executors obtain Confirmation of the Will (Probate in England) and then distribute the assets in accordance with its provisions. Even that complication would create an extra step in each and every case, and you could also understand that the collation of someone’s assets could very well miss a small holding of shares bought many years previously that no-one knew anything about.

This was one of the reasons that I pressed Alan a little on what he stated as an inflexible requirement for the full 100%. Personally, I believe that he will be realistic and settle for something below 100%, which will still be enough to give him complete control, but is understandably stating 100% in order to attract as many as shares as possible.

[Kind of Blue]

I see Strathaird Salmon Ltd is on the shareholder list  but this company was dissolved in 2022, so just another example of an issue getting to the 100% compliance.

[+DoofersDad]

5 hours ago, CaleyD said:

 

I still believe the Supporters Trust need to hold an EGM to allow members their say.  I don't expect members would prevent handing over the shares and voting rights if needed, but doing things the wrong way for the right reasons is not acceptable because it erodes the same checks and measures that may be required to prevent people from doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons in future.          

 

 

   

It's not just allowing the members to have their say, it is having an opportunity for the Trust Board to explain to members what they plan to do in relation to their shares and their voting rights and for members to ask questions relating to that.  Since Gardiner has gone and is no longer able to obstruct the Trust in all it tried to do, the Trust has been doing a brilliant job in supporting the club.  I hope that they have been having discussions with AS about how they can be involved in the decision making process going forward.    Now that AS has been confirmed as preferred bidder, it might now be appropriate for the Trust say a little bit more than they would have been able to say earlier and an EGM would be a good place to do it.

Like Don, I am not a fan of what is being done  or how it is being done, but I don't see any viable alternative.  I do believe that Alan Savage has the good of the club at heart, but there remains a little niggle that with total control, he could sell out to the likes of Ketan Makwana who, according to the Courier has now appointed a certain Scot Gardiner as one of his specialist Advisors!

[+DoofersDad]

1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

There are bound to be several who have died, especially since most of these shareholders would have bought their allocation 30 years ago, and many would have been middle aged even then.

 

I couldn't make my mind up whether to bequeath my shares to Doofer or to the Supporters Trust.  At least that's one thing I don't need to worry about now!

 

[Scotty]

4 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

In theory, the deceased’s Executors obtain Confirmation of the Will (Probate in England) and then distribute the assets in accordance with its provisions. Even that complication would create an extra step in each and every case, and you could also understand that the collation of someone’s assets could very well miss a small holding of shares bought many years previously that no-one knew anything about.

I am still dealing with little bits and pieces of my mothers estate as they crop up and she died in 2019 ! It was (and still is) a bit of an admin nightmare navigating various accounts, shares and other stuff. She had a will but her executor had pre-deceased her so I had to go up in front of the sheriff's officer and get listed as executor. 

4 hours ago, Kind of Blue said:

I see Strathaird Salmon Ltd is on the shareholder list  but this company was dissolved in 2022, so just another example of an issue getting to the 100% compliance.

Another good example. Sure there are plenty more in there. 

3 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Since Gardiner has gone and is no longer able to obstruct the Trust in all it tried to do, the Trust has been doing a brilliant job in supporting the club.  

Agreed

3 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Like Don, I am not a fan of what is being done  or how it is being done, but I don't see any viable alternative.  

I am in that same column too. Personally i think a lot of it stems back to when he was chairman before and wanted to achieve certain things but conflicts and pissing contests got in the way. 

3 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

I do believe that Alan Savage has the good of the club at heart, but there remains a little niggle that with total control, he could sell out to the likes of Ketan Makwana who, according to the Courier has now appointed a certain Scot Gardiner as one of his specialist Advisors!

I also believe he has the good of the club at heart but yes, my fears are also the same. He sells out to someone who talks a good game, and maybe even presents well, but is later found to be unworthy. I'd like to think he wont do that, or his due diligence may be better than our former CEO but that fear is always there. 

As for Ketan's special advisor, the link on his website leads to SG's linkedin page which has had the phygital treatment i think. Are "Eight Seven Six Events" related to "Seventy Seven Ventures"  Sorry to say I got lost down the rabbit hole of his profile for a few minutes. It makes fascinating reading. Off to update my CV now after reading that !!! 

[+old caley girl]

4 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

It's not just allowing the members to have their say, it is having an opportunity for the Trust Board to explain to members what they plan to do in relation to their shares and their voting rights and for members to ask questions relating to that.  Since Gardiner has gone and is no longer able to obstruct the Trust in all it tried to do, the Trust has been doing a brilliant job in supporting the club.  I hope that they have been having discussions with AS about how they can be involved in the decision making process going forward.    Now that AS has been confirmed as preferred bidder, it might now be appropriate for the Trust say a little bit more than they would have been able to say earlier and an EGM would be a good place to do it.

Like Don, I am not a fan of what is being done  or how it is being done, but I don't see any viable alternative.  I do believe that Alan Savage has the good of the club at heart, but there remains a little niggle that with total control, he could sell out to the likes of Ketan Makwana who, according to the Courier has now appointed a certain Scot Gardiner as one of his specialist Advisors!

Yeh the courier picked up that info from our fans on X! But is true. 

[RiG]

7 hours ago, old caley girl said:

Yeh the courier picked up that info from our fans on X! But is true. 

The same Courier of course that were writing about him as some kind of savior when he appeared on the scene despite have multiple red flags that made anyone with half a brain wary of what he was trying to do.

[STFU]

Votes are only based on the people in the room and proxies (?) so unless all 500 plus shareholders show up (and we already know that's not possible) at a meeting then we are rarely if ever looking at calculating percentages against all shares.

[STFU]

Need to hope that Scooby Doo doesn't appear to rip off Savages mask revealing that he is really Makwana.

[tm4tj]

Ruh Roh!

[Scotty]

He would have got away with it too ... if it wasnt for those pesky kids (on CTO, the Wyness Shuffle, and the Supporters Trust)