Mystery Investors

[caleyboy]

Let's not get carried away here. Sutherland can block most things on his own ( albeit I believe his shares are held by some sports trust ) and if he has the support of Savage and Catto, nobody has any chance of taking control. At the end of the day, Sutherland has control already but if someone wants to inject serious cash, lets wait and see what they have to say. IMO, if it is good for the club I couldn't care who has control even if the caritable David Sutherland keeps reminding us he saved the club from "going over the edge of the cliff". Money is money no matter where it comes from and the Club needs it to progress.

[Scotty]

we are lucky to have someone like David Sutherland on our side.  Don't get me wrong, his motives won't be entirely selfless, but he has always done well by us whilst improving his own situation and I'd rather be in a win-win situation involving him than risk our position with an unknown entity.

I am in total agreement with that statement.

I had numerous meetings - both formal and informal - with DFS and those in his "ICT posse" in the past few years and have always felt that regardless of anything else he always had the best interests of ICT at heart. That is why we heavily supported him when he was attempting to become chairman the first time and why we would likely support him and the current board should their be any takeover bid.

I would agree that his published acts are not always selfless as his company does benefit from the exposure/work but I dont think that this has ever been the be all and end all for him.

At the end of the day he masterminded our return from the edge of the cliff as he commented in the paper and that is something that no Caley Thistle fan should EVER be allowed to forget because I sincerely believe that we would have gone the way of Clydebank had he not pulled us up by the bootstraps. I would also note that he does (or used to do) quite a lot of things within ICT when we were struggling financially that could best be described as philanthropic. Most of these were never publicised so it cant be said he is only in it for what he can get.

We all mump and moan on here about things at the stadium, or the way that ICT is not as customer oriented as before but that does not mean we want to replace everybody with a new set of owners - especially ones that set alarm bells ringing when they are described as "a central belt businessman" or "a group of London based investors" .... Maybe we will be less suspicious when we know who these currently faceless people are ... but i doubt it.

Although a takeover would seem unlikely given the ownership of large numbers of ICT shares by relatively few people who I think are "ICT people", the idea scares me because I think CaleyD may well have hit the nail on the head with his "harbour development" theory. That part of the longman will be unrecognisable in a few years - I have seen the plans - and if it is developed as per those plans (leisure village - yachts, marina, hotels etc) then the TCS will be at the heart of it and located on land that will - as CD says - skyrocket in value to the point where ICT may well be able to return the stadium to normal ownership and either make enough money by selling their lease to build a brand spanking new stadium (if thats what we want) in an alternative location or be able to stay where they are and be at the heart of a vibrant leisure district.

[TomCaleyJag]

The worry is we'll go the way of Dundee and pay ridiculous wages only to see it all go down the pan.

We're doing fine atm so I'd be quite happy if these 'investors' fecked off.

[TomCaleyJag]

official site

Savage says club is not for sale after board meeting

[ictchris]

Who would have thunk it?

:023:

[collectiveaction]

having one business or individual in control of the club wouldn't be in the club's best interests

I have to agree with that - you just need to look at Hearts as one example.

Yeh, Jack Walker really made an arse of things at Blackburn Rovers. Let's see who these mystery individuals are before shrouding the whole initiative in negativity.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

A guy has just been on TalkSport saying that the team he supports are rumoured to be looking at ploughing money into ICT. I really do not believe the club that he says is making this move  :029: - but given recent events he could be right on cue - I fer one say feck aff.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

[Alex MacLeod]

Let's not get carried away here. Sutherland can block most things on his own ( albeit I believe his shares are held by some sports trust ) and if he has the support of Savage and Catto, nobody has any chance of taking control. At the end of the day, Sutherland has control already but if someone wants to inject serious cash, lets wait and see what they have to say. IMO, if it is good for the club I couldn't care who has control even if the caritable David Sutherland keeps reminding us he saved the club from "going over the edge of the cliff". Money is money no matter where it comes from and the Club needs it to progress.

Thats not quite true caleyboy. I believe there's around 20% of the club available to a buyer and around another 20% that the holding individuals may be willing to sell at a small profit, which wouldn't take much considering they dont get a return on their investment as it is.

I get worried when persons are reported as wanting to invest in any business because generally this means takeover.

I'd like to here what the stadium developement one is though. The marina needs a hotel.  Is it someone who wants to develop with such a facility attached that they would control and operate.

The final thing that intrigues me is this 'feeder club' view. I know that some clubs are referred as such because they tend to bring players through and sell them on but, not being a club with such a reputation, I cant see why anyone would see ICT as being such.

[Guest TinCanFan]

I seem to remember something similar happening before and nothing became of it then so I can't really see it happening now.

[Scotty]

Thats not quite true caleyboy. I believe there's around 20% of the club available to a buyer and around another 20% that the holding individuals may be willing to sell at a small profit, which wouldn't take much considering they dont get a return on their investment as it is.

I am guessing here ... but

Sutherland / Tullochs - 29%

Catto - 16%

Savage - 12%

Ross - 5%

Un-issued Shares - around 20% (?)

Supporters Trust ??% (less than 12% but have a 12% voting right)

small shareholders ??% (probably around 10-12 % ? mostly in blocks of 250)

As the club have already said its not going to happen, I am mindful to believe them.

If you consider that the major shareholders are unlikely to sell - Savage and Sutherland have already said that, and I am sure that the others would have a similar response if asked - an investor wanting a takeover would have to buy all the unissued shares which is not going to happen because DFS or someone else close to him or the club would snap some or all of them up. They would then have to buy virtually all the shares from small investors to get a holding close to the same level that DFS currently has.

I cant see Catto selling as he is already involved in the harbour deal is he not (?) and will be well aware of what may happen to land values in this area in the next few years. I dont know Roddy Ross so not sure of how he would think but 5% is not a huge holding in terms of buying enough to take over the club.

I am almost certain that the supporters trust would not sell theirs under any circumstances and even if they wanted to they probably wouldnt get approval from their members and there would likely be a lot of red tape involved given the members' club transfer, their own constitution and their voting rights.

The majority of small shareholders would also be unlikely to sell, even for a modest profit as we bought these shares to be a part of the club rather than for any long or even short term financial gain .... Unlike other shares I hold or have held, I have always viewed my ICT shares as a "donation" to the club and wouldnt bother selling them unless someone offered me truly stupid money which is not going to happen.

If someone wants to come in and buy the unissued shares without strings attached then fair enough, but if, as speculated there could be conditions attached, like a controlling interest etc then no dice.

[Guest sophia]

"the harbour deal"

I recall something along the lines of "better selling to a local than somebody from London" and an advertisement placed, was it Christmas Eve, in the Courier.

Lairdism doncha just love it!

Due respect to what has been invested but our ground is a bit of an embarrassment is it not?

To use a football analogy ?you are only as good ??

Oh and ?what have the Romans ever done for us?

[Scotty]

Oh and ?what have the Romans ever done for us?

Shouldnt that be Romanians ?  :004:

If the long term plans for that area of the longman come to fruition, the land value will skyrocket and we wont need anyone else's money to either finish or relocate our stadium

[buckett]

Yer awfully mysterious, Sophia!

A bit of a non-story it would seem. Phrases like "it is understood . . . ." and "it is thought . . . . " don't lend much concrete to it all.

How do you recruit a "feeder-club" anyway?

[Guest sophia]

He?s not the Messiah, he?s a very natty accountant.

[Caley]

The most interesting part of the Courier story for me was Sutherland stating his desire to have the stadium moved to the Bught. I take it DS is a major figure in "ICT Properties". This all fits in with the "land prices will skyrocket at East Longman" theories on here so far.

[Joe DiMaggio]

How can the value of the land skyrocketing help us finish or imrpove the stadium? Unless some of the land was sold off. Also never been to sure about the Bught, even if the distributer road is carried on across the river the roads coming from town and around the Bught are really narrow and would lead to massive traffic problems. It also not that closer to where the stadium is now from the city center and theres not many pubs up there either.

[Scotty]

How can the value of the land skyrocketing help us finish or imrpove the stadium? Unless some of the land was sold off.

asked and answered in a single post. well done.

three ways -

01. sell the leasehold on the whole site and move

02. sell the leashold on portions of the site furthest away from the stadium itself and use money to improve / buy back stadium

03. allow developers to build office/hotel etc in the corners between the stands and use money to improve / buy back stadium

[Dmacca]

The worry is we'll go the way of Dundee and pay ridiculous wages only to see it all go down the pan.

We're doing fine atm so I'd be quite happy if these 'investors' fecked off.

Well said that man.

[chris123]

Agreed, Dundee is the example. I remember when they were willing to pay 1million for James McFadden.

[SMEE]

I think the reason DS would champion a move to the bught is because he would have more than a passing intrest in the land we would vacate down the longman. He is a Buisnessman thro and thro

[Alex MacLeod]

The land is still owned by Highland council. We have a long term lease on it. ICT Properties, I believe, is a trust company mainly involving Tullochs, ICT FC, Highland Council and others.

ICT FC would not gain from land prices increasing other than a financial incentive to terminate the lease early.

[CaleyD]

Thats not quite true caleyboy. I believe there's around 20% of the club available to a buyer and around another 20% that the holding individuals may be willing to sell at a small profit, which wouldn't take much considering they dont get a return on their investment as it is.

I am guessing here ... but

Sutherland / Tullochs - 29%

Catto - 16%

Savage - 12%

Ross - 5%

Un-issued Shares - around 20% (?)

Supporters Trust ??% (less than 12% but have a 12% voting right)

small shareholders ??% (probably around 10-12 % ? mostly in blocks of 250)

As the club have already said its not going to happen, I am mindful to believe them.

If you consider that the major shareholders are unlikely to sell - Savage and Sutherland have already said that, and I am sure that the others would have a similar response if asked - an investor wanting a takeover would have to buy all the unissued shares which is not going to happen because DFS or someone else close to him or the club would snap some or all of them up. They would then have to buy virtually all the shares from small investors to get a holding close to the same level that DFS currently has.

I cant see Catto selling as he is already involved in the harbour deal is he not (?) and will be well aware of what may happen to land values in this area in the next few years. I dont know Roddy Ross so not sure of how he would think but 5% is not a huge holding in terms of buying enough to take over the club.

I am almost certain that the supporters trust would not sell theirs under any circumstances and even if they wanted to they probably wouldnt get approval from their members and there would likely be a lot of red tape involved given the members' club transfer, their own constitution and their voting rights.

The majority of small shareholders would also be unlikely to sell, even for a modest profit as we bought these shares to be a part of the club rather than for any long or even short term financial gain .... Unlike other shares I hold or have held, I have always viewed my ICT shares as a "donation" to the club and wouldnt bother selling them unless someone offered me truly stupid money which is not going to happen.

If someone wants to come in and buy the unissued shares without strings attached then fair enough, but if, as speculated there could be conditions attached, like a controlling interest etc then no dice.

Another important fact in that which I've highlighted above is that Inverness Thistle and Caledonian is not a public company and therefore the Board can pick and choose who they wish to sell the un-issued shares too.  In short, under our current setup their is no real threat of a hostile takeover bid.

The land is still owned by Highland council. We have a long term lease on it. ICT Properties, I believe, is a trust company mainly involving Tullochs, ICT FC, Highland Council and others.

ICT FC would not gain from land prices increasing other than a financial incentive to terminate the lease early.

I disagree that the only way for the club to gain is from packing up and moving out.  It may well be the most likely outcome (IMO), and one cemented by the comments of Sutherland in the papers this week (and some of his more recent land purchases), but it is just as feasible that the Stadium could remain where it is and benefit from partners/investors undertaking joint ventures with the club.

This isn't the first approach the club has had and we had better get used to it because others will be coming thick and fast in the next few years.  What the club have to decide is what kind of deal they are looking for and what suits us best....The fact the club do not hold the primary lease may seem like a weak point in our position, but had it not been for that then we could find ourselves under pressure from the bank to sell up and settle debts....look at St Mirren as an example.  They were fine until they became solvent and then the bank called in the debt forcing them to sell out to Tesco....they aren't doing too badly out of the deal, but I bet they would rather stay at Love Street, or have been in a position to hold out for a better deal.

[old caley girl]

Can't believe the bught thing is surfacing again. Any pre-merger Caley fans out there will know this subject was done to death years ago. However, maybe i'm wrong and the politics have changed.

[Scotty]

Can't believe the bught thing is surfacing again. Any pre-merger Caley fans out there will know this subject was done to death years ago. However, maybe i'm wrong and the politics have changed.

A lot of things have changed  - not least the fact that there will eventually be something akin to ring road round the town - but I am still not convinced the Bught, which is essentially still just a large park in the middle of a residential area, is the right place.

Another thing that has changed - and I believe this may become the driving factor in any proposed stadium move - is what has already been said in this thread, and that is the potential of the area where the stadium is currently located.

I saw plans more than five years ago that showed the stadium at the heart of what was essentially a leisure/tourism strip that ran to the north of the A96 (and rail line) from almost Allanfearn following the current coastline round and to the east of the Kessock bridge. The plan showed more reclaimed land than is currently there which would make the strip wider and there was lots of green space plus hotels, several marinas, waterfront developments and such like.

I dont know if these plans have changed, I suspect they probably have as it seemed to be one of these sort of "pie in the sky - this is what we could have..." sort of ideas, but if TCS was going to be in the centre of such an area then pressure on them to move and allow more lucrative businesses to take up the space might make it viable or even inevitable.

At the end of the day, I wouldnt be against moving the stadium - despite its spectacular views - but only if that could be unequivocally shown to be in the best interests of the club and its fans. For example, if we were to be offered a suitable plot in an accessible area with a plan for a stadium that had 4 stands and good public and private transportation links for fans without disrupting existing residential areas then that would be fine ... but the problem is getting all those boxes ticked !!! Until then, TCS will do just fine  :003: