David Sutherland

[StockholmSyndrome]

THIS IS A TOPIC SPLIT FROM THE BREWSTER: MAN FOR THE JOB THREAD. It was not statrted by WriteOnCaley

If the board really wanted to do it they would find the money somewhere.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Scotty
added topic split message

[Kingsmills]

That's a very sweeping statement. We live in difficult economic times, not least for the construction industry !

[StockholmSyndrome]

That's a very sweeping statement. We live in difficult economic times, not least for the construction industry !

That's as may be, but it's remarkable how, even in tough times, individuals and organisations can find the resources to do something if they really want to do it. Anyway, as you've pointed out, Brewster's contract is up at the end of the season, so it surely wouldn't cost that much to pay him off now?

[CaleyD]

I think many are in agreement that Brewster will not have ICT finishing where they should in the league this year, so all the club have to gamble on is that a new manager might bump us one place further up the league and the cost of paying off Brewster is covered.

Aside from that we're not exactly broke and we do have cash in the bank, if the club aren't willing to invest that in the clubs future, then what are they willing to invest it in?

[Jay_7]

I think many are in agreement that Brewster will not have ICT finishing where they should in the league this year, so all the club have to gamble on is that a new manager might bump us one place further up the league and the cost of paying off Brewster is covered.

Aside from that we're not exactly broke and we do have cash in the bank, if the club aren't willing to invest that in the clubs future, then what are they willing to invest it in?

I'd put money on Sutherlands pockets...

Edited November 20, 2008 by Jay_7

[CaleyD]

Sutherland already has what he wants - total, unrestricted control over the site of TCS. I also get the feeling that everything else is now an inconvenience and if I was a total cynic, I might even go so far as to say that having an SPL team sitting in residence will be seen as harder to shift than a 1st Div team!!!

[Council Juice]

Sutherland already has what he wants - total, unrestricted control over the site of TCS. I also get the feeling that everything else is now an inconvenience and if I was a total cynic, I might even go so far as to say that having an SPL team sitting in residence will be seen as harder to shift than a 1st Div team!!!

So going as far to say that Sutherland wants the land and Caley out. I agree he is a plonker, but not that bad and evil surely?!

[Jay_7]

So going as far to say that Sutherland wants the land and Caley out. I agree he is a plonker, but not that bad and evil surely?!

Believe it... What's worse is he knows no one can do anything about it.

Edited November 20, 2008 by Jay_7

[Alex MacLeod]

So going as far to say that Sutherland wants the land and Caley out. I agree he is a plonker, but not that bad and evil surely?!

Believe it... What's worse is he knows no one can do anything about it.

HRC could cancel the lease on the land.

[Jay_7]

So going as far to say that Sutherland wants the land and Caley out. I agree he is a plonker, but not that bad and evil surely?!

Believe it... What's worse is he knows no one can do anything about it.

HRC could cancel the lease on the land.

They could, but just how likely is that to happen? As long as we're keeping up payments on the lease then they'd really have no reason to.

[Alex MacLeod]

So going as far to say that Sutherland wants the land and Caley out. I agree he is a plonker, but not that bad and evil surely?!

Believe it... What's worse is he knows no one can do anything about it.

HRC could cancel the lease on the land.

They could, but just how likely is that to happen? As long as we're keeping up payments on the lease then they'd really have no reason to.

I'm not saying, and I doubt very much, that they would cancel the lease so long as there's a stadium standing on the site. I do think, however, that they'd be interested if the lease was to transfer to someone with other idea's for the site.

[CaleyD]

The lease already has transferred Alex (to a company owned and controlled by Sutherland) and there's been numerous enquiries made about changing the designated use for the land so as to allow the developer who now owns it to make a few quid from it.

When this eventually happens (and it will, I'd bet every penny I have on it) then it won't be ICT who benefit, nor indeed will it be the Charitable Trust we were led to believe were taking ownership.....it will be David Sutherland, and he'll do so by a factor of 10 (or more) on what he originally paid for it.

[Scotty]

I'll be quite honest and say I dont really understand a lot of the stadium trust details but back when it happened, I know that our debt disappeared overnight and we were once again solvent. At the time when this happened we were seriously in danger of imploding and going the way that Gretna did and however it was done, his plan breathed new life into the club. If he hadn't have done it, this conversation (and website) would probably be redundant.

Mr Sutherland may gain out of it, and gain quite handsomely if anything ever happens on this front, but I remember a lot of fans at the time saying that they didnt mind this as he did quite literally save the club. Are we opposed to moving if the deal is right ? I don't think so .... a lot of fans would have been happy to transfer the lease to Asda a year or two back in return for a nice purpose built stadium that fitted our needs a bit better than the TCS .... so if it were to be transferred to Tulloch on the same terms would there really be a problem ? Tulloch have done far more for ICT than Asda ever has !!!!

At the end of the day, Mr Sutherland is a very successful businessman and has made his living by making the right choices, and probably being quite ruthless when he has had to be but I don't believe that he would do something to the detriment of ICT as *****ing on your own doorstep is not good for business.

Anyhow, I really came on this thread to get it back on topic before entering my own off-topic rant !!!! So slaps all round to all of those taking it off topic (including me) and lets get it back on topic as it is drifting quite considerably .....

[Kingsmills]

While I have concerns about some things which have being going on in the background and share a number of Caley D's views on the matter I still think, on balance, that David Sutherland has the best interests of the club at heart even if he is likely to make a handsom personal gain on the arrangement.

[Charles Bannerman]

I'll be quite honest and say I dont really understand a lot of the stadium trust details but back when it happened, I know that our debt disappeared overnight and we were once again solvent. At the time when this happened we were seriously in danger of imploding and going the way that Gretna did and however it was done, his plan breathed new life into the club. If he hadn't have done it, this conversation (and website) would probably be redundant.

Mr Sutherland may gain out of it, and gain quite handsomely if anything ever happens on this front, but I remember a lot of fans at the time saying that they didnt mind this as he did quite literally save the club. Are we opposed to moving if the deal is right ? I don't think so .... a lot of fans would have been happy to transfer the lease to Asda a year or two back in return for a nice purpose built stadium that fitted our needs a bit better than the TCS .... so if it were to be transferred to Tulloch on the same terms would there really be a problem ? Tulloch have done far more for ICT than Asda ever has !!!!

At the end of the day, Mr Sutherland is a very successful businessman and has made his living by making the right choices, and probably being quite ruthless when he has had to be but I don't believe that he would do something to the detriment of ICT as *****ing on your own doorstep is not good for business.

Anyhow, I really came on this thread to get it back on topic before entering my own off-topic rant !!!! So slaps all round to all of those taking it off topic (including me) and lets get it back on topic as it is drifting quite considerably .....

In general, a pretty accurate and balanced appraisal. Could I perhaps summarise David Sutherland/ Tulloch's input to ICT?

* In 2000 ICT was running a debt of over ?2M which, as Scotty said, could have put it the way of Gretna. David Sutherland to a large extent conceived and created the ICT Trust which miraculously spirited away that debt and took over ownership of the Caledonian Stadium. There is no doubt that David Sutherland's influence with the Bank of Scotland and his ability to make guarantees were central to this.

* In 2002 cash flow still was not in great shape. Tullochs, in round figures, injected half a million, mainly through share uptake. However Tullochs have always gone out of their way not to become majority (ie more than 50%) shareholders.

* By 2004 Caley Thistle were in the SPL but playing at crippling cost in Aberdeen. The very narrow passageway of rapidly upgrading to over 6000 seats emerged, with a deadline of January 2005. Tullochs largely facilitated and funded the construction of the north and south stands which went up in 47 days, bringing SPL football to Inverness, once again saving its finances and achieving its ongoing status in the top league.

* David Sutherland has been involved in ICT for 8 or 9 years now. I think we are still waiting for the predictions of the doomsayers to come about. Indeed the overall effect of his involvement has been to ensure the transition of ICT from a First Division club on the precipice of bankruptcy to a well established member of the SPL, playing in its own home city in fully compliant facilities and which has made a profit in two of the last three financial years.

Inevitably Tullochs will have quite rightly had a return on their investment - almosty entriely in the form of the goodwill and positive publicity which their involvement has brought them.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Charles Bannerman

[Ronaldo]

And now back to DS....

What I find puzzling is why a number of fans cannot embrace what he has done?

I think any club who has someone as wealthy as him around with the clubs interest at heart, who cares if he he wants to be dictatorial every so often, fine by me?

Think oursleves lucky!

[Jay_7]

And now back to DS....

What I find puzzling is why a number of fans cannot embrace what he has done?

I think any club who has someone as wealthy as him around with the clubs interest at heart, who cares if he he wants to be dictatorial every so often, fine by me?

Think oursleves lucky!

Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate what has done in the past. The fact is he is now strangeling the club, holding us back if you like. His biggest problem is he wants the power without the limelight, hence he is not the Chairman anymore but can dictate what the Chairman can and can not do. He may well have done good things in the past but he is harming the club right now. If you're fine with that, then that's your problem.

[Kingsmills]

And now back to DS....

What I find puzzling is why a number of fans cannot embrace what he has done?

I think any club who has someone as wealthy as him around with the clubs interest at heart, who cares if he he wants to be dictatorial every so often, fine by me?

Think oursleves lucky!

Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate what has done in the past. The fact is he is now strangeling the club, holding us back if you like. His biggest problem is he wants the power without the limelight, hence he is not the Chairman anymore but can dictate what the Chairman can and can not do. He may well have done good things in the past but he is harming the club right now. If you're fine with that, then that's your problem.

I don't see that there's any evidence to back up the claim that David Sutherland is now hampering the club. Do you really think that, in the current economic climate, wealthy individuals would be lining up to invest in the club if he wasn't in the background ?

[stevico1]

I am not going to comment on his motives, but perhaps if the club were to clarify the questions regarding the stadium ownership this could all be put to bed

[Kingsmills]

The question has often been asked, no straightforward reply has ever been forthcoming. I don't see that changing any time soon !

[Scotty]

As I said above, there are plenty of examples of how he has helped the club through difficult times when no-one else could or would have done so. I was very close to the action during his ascendence as shareholder then chairman first time round and I am convinced that without his assistance, contacts and business know-how we quite simply would not be having this discussion right now as we would have either gone out of business or at best be plying our trade in the lower leagues or even back in the Highland League. We were so broke at the time that I myself (via the website and a lot of on the ground haranguing of people) was working on a "pay a player" fundraising scheme before he took over .... such was the dire condition of the club's finances.

Some of what he has done is known publicly, but there are a lot of other things that were done privately with no fanfare which reduced costs at the stadium in a time of great need such as using staff seconded or loaned from other businesses, or even small things like providing the odd bits an pieces of office supplies or furniture. It is something that was echoed on a smaller scale by some of our other directors too.

I am not so naive that I think it was all done for no gain. As CaleyD has pointed out there are indeed question marks over the stadium that have still to be answered, and I dont think there is any question that he boosted his own personal and company profile locally by helping ICT when he did. He also helped other organisations in the local area (highland games, nairn pipe band etc) and at the end of the day I believe Tulloch profited from this in terms of goodwill. The public and local governmental perception of them would have made it easier to sell houses (when the market was good) and easier to be trusted when making planning applications that might be viewed suspiciously if it came from other non-local companies.

As a shareholder, I am interested in finding out the answer to CaleyD's question about stadium ownership. I don't believe the answer will be as sinister as some people believe, but it is clear that the current situation is different to that which the shareholders voted on back when it happened. However, it is equally clear that this is something that will not be answered in open forum and the time and place to ask for detailed answers to this question is at the next shareholders meeting.

As for him "strangling" the club or "holding us back", I simply do not know. I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt based on what has gone before and I can tell you from my dealings with him is that he is most definitely a supporter, just like the rest of us so I dont think he would do that, nor do I think he would purposely try to orchestrate a scenario whereby we were relegated as some have suggested.

I was disappointed that he seemed unable to work with Alan Savage as AS did seem to have ideas that would propel us forward. Mr Savage spoke of interference during his chairmanship and that should not have happened. I am guessing here, but as i mentioned on another thread somewhere, perhaps it was a clash of visions on how to achieve the same goal ..... We know that DS came in, sorted out our finances, put systems in place and turned us into a fiscally responsible outfit .... and I think we can also see that AS wanted to move us forward, had many ideas on how to do this, and may have been more prepared to take a few risks to get there. Perhaps Mr Sutherland, who had seen us at the precipice before, didnt like this idea of risk and made it known ...... perhaps he was right, given the current economic climate, and perhaps we might even say he saw that coming given his recent diversification of business interests away from the building trade before the worst of the recession started hitting ..... At the end of the day, my biggest disappointment is that these two obviously astute businessmen could not have met somewhere in the middle and figured out a way to do both .... move us forward whilst spending within our means.

so to sum up - as far as I am concerned, DS is a businessman, a supporter, and someone who may very well profit personally if ICT were to move from the TCS. However, as a supporter, I do not believe he would allow that profit to take precedence over the wellbeing of ICT.

[Jay_7]

I don't see that there's any evidence to back up the claim that David Sutherland is now hampering the club.

Because the evidence hasn't been put in the public domain yet.

[Scotty]

I don't see that there's any evidence to back up the claim that David Sutherland is now hampering the club.

Because the evidence hasn't been put in the public domain yet.

Jay_7 - one thing about "****", especially **** that you try to hide, is that it ALWAYS hits the fan eventually. If my opinion above proves to be totally wrong, you can be sure that this will come out in the end...... sometimes you have to play the long game and wait to see what happens.

[reefinweedallday]

Personally speaking i hope he does take over the land,puts houses on it,turns it in to a bustling waterfront development and moves us somewhere anywhere the f*ck away from where we are now,if he profits from that then no problem,at the end of the day he has consistantly put his money where his mouth is when needed and without him we would have no club.

Although i'm sure there are many in the construction industry(especially after all the redundencies at Tullochs) would call him an Evil Genius me i prefer to call him an astute businessman

[Council Juice]

HE is an astute businessman who has done alot for the club and we all thank him for that wholeheartedly im sure.

Does anyone think perhaps he and Savage just didnt get along, perhaps they did not agree on plans either.

My only quelm is that his relationship with Brew is not as such to allow him to continue in his role of manager as of detriment to the club and it's SPL position as a whole.

Hopefully he would sack him when he felt the time was right feeling Brew couldnt take the club forward rather than let his friendship get in the way of business.

I dont think he intends to take us down a level and throw us of his land. Even if he does somehow stick with Brew.