"The ICT Thread - From the Premiership to the Seaside"

[Buzz Killington]

15 minutes ago, bdu98196 said:

Watching the video, overall they got a fairly easy ride TBH. AS spoke well but that I feel protected the vitrol towards the directors and gave them an out to pass everything over to Alan or Charlie knowing they are more palatable to the fanbase.

All the directors have done is blame others, no point saying 'we take responsibility now' & 'we cant look back'. Its too late as where was the ownership of responsibilities during their time - IMO however we restructure or end up there needs a clear out with Bennett & Fyfe and any of the historical legacy gone too.

 

Yeah, its seems that as long as Morrison was funding the losses the other directors were happy to go along with it.  Now that's stoppped its "all a bad man did it and ran away" and "we should have asked more questions".

Edited Tuesday at 08:48 by Buzz Killington

[Parttimesupporter]

38 minutes ago, EdinburghBlue said:

Call an EGM and pass a resolution to allow more shares to be issued.

That was my initial thought too.  I imagine that there has to be a 21 day notice period for an EGM, so that can't be done before the deadline of 16 October.  Must confess I haven't been following this closely enough to understand the reason for the deadline.  Mr Savage is clearly a sharp cookie so there must be a reason why this option has been discounted.

Despite having a vested interest this season in ICT struggling I hope they survive.

[CountryBumpkin]

1 hour ago, Central Belt Caley said:

Meetings online now, fill your boots 

A lot of "buck passing" going on there when answering the questions as to why Gardiner was left unchecked. 

[PB1994]

1 hour ago, Buzz Killington said:

The most horriffic part of the night for me wasn't the Gardiner revalations.

At one point the Interim Chairman asked for a show of hands for the preference between two options.  1.  Someone takes over the club in the next 9 days or 2. Administration.  The result was about 50:50 for each option.  That's right half of the people who raised their hand would prefer admin over being taken over before admin.

There are a lot of fans who seem to think the whole administration lark will be a simple thing that solves everything.

I wouldn't read too much into that to be honest. It was a terrible question.

It's not as simple as the options he gave. I think everyone would want someone to come in and buy the club within the next 9 days but it has to be the right person. Someone who cares about the club being a part of the community, bringing through local players to the first team etc. It would be an absolute miracle if you found that person who also happens to have £3.42 million to wipe out the debts, £1.6 million to fund us for the season, whatever cash would be needed to buy up shares and then extra money to fund the club well into the future. Even if you found a person with those beliefs for a football club and the cash why the hell would they pick us? You could buy a Premiership team for that sort of money.

Admin is inevitable and we have to keep our fingers crossed that Savage can get us through the other side of it. 

[welshbairn]

48 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

That was my initial thought too.  I imagine that there has to be a 21 day notice period for an EGM, so that can't be done before the deadline of 16 October.  Must confess I haven't been following this closely enough to understand the reason for the deadline.  Mr Savage is clearly a sharp cookie so there must be a reason why this option has been discounted.

Despite having a vested interest this season in ICT struggling I hope they survive.

If enough shares were issued to cover the loans, then presumably the club would be back in the hands of the directors who were directly or indirectly responsible for the mess it's in now.

[ICTChris]

I was told that several of the guys who the club owe all this money to are facing personal bankruptcy if they don't get it back.  They may have said to Savage a month ago they'd write it off but then, when discussing this with their own lawyers or accountants, realised that the full implications of it.

You have to ask yourself why anyone would let a lower league Scottish football club be the basis of your finances.  It's insane.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

I was told that several of the guys who the club owe all this money to are facing personal bankruptcy if they don't get it back.  They may have said to Savage a month ago they'd write it off but then, when discussing this with their own lawyers or accountants, realised that the full implications of it.

You have to ask yourself why anyone would let a lower league Scottish football club be the basis of your finances.  It's insane.

It sounds like most of that money was gambled on the battery farm, concert and park and ride schemes, rather than the success of the football club.

[ICTChris]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

It sounds like most of that money was gambled on the battery farm, concert and park and ride schemes, rather than the success of the football club.

Yeah, I think they ran up losses thinking "it'll be OK the concerts/battery farm/car park for Norwegian Hydro workers will pay for it" but they didn't.

 

[forkboy]

4 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

I was told that several of the guys who the club owe all this money to are facing personal bankruptcy if they don't get it back.  They may have said to Savage a month ago they'd write it off but then, when discussing this with their own lawyers or accountants, realised that the full implications of it.

You have to ask yourself why anyone would let a lower league Scottish football club be the basis of your finances.  It's insane.

How did these people get enough money to invest in a football club when they clearly have the financial nous of a baby? And they decided to just let Scot Gardiner have no oversight despite it being all their money? They'd have been as well going to Vegas & putting it all on black for the sense they appear to have shown

[Sir Tarmo]

57 minutes ago, PB1994 said:

I wouldn't read too much into that to be honest. It was a terrible question.

 

True, stupid questions get stupid answers.

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, forkboy said:

How did these people get enough money to invest in a football club when they clearly have the financial nous of a baby? And they decided to just let Scot Gardiner have no oversight despite it being all their money? They'd have been as well going to Vegas & putting it all on black for the sense they appear to have shown

I'm not sure how much Gardiner had to do with the battery farm, it was to be built on land owned by a former director. With the directors being distracted by multi million pound money trees they probably thought Gardiner could handle piddling day to day business on his own, like collecting the £80k due from Carlisle.

[Buzz Killington]

15 minutes ago, Sir Tarmo said:

True, stupid questions get stupid answers.

I wish I shared your optimism.

[Sir Tarmo]

6 minutes ago, Buzz Killington said:

I wish I shared your optimism.

There was no optimism displayed in that post. It’s certainly a worrying answer from half of the audience, but also worrying and a bit bizarre that anybody at board level (or equivalent) would ask such a question. I can only hope they didn’t understand the question fully. 

[Buzz Killington]

24 minutes ago, Sir Tarmo said:

There was no optimism displayed in that post. It’s certainly a worrying answer from half of the audience, but also worrying and a bit bizarre that anybody at board level (or equivalent) would ask such a question. I can only hope they didn’t understand the question fully. 

I just watched that part again (47:10 if anyone cares).  It was straight after someone asked about Ketan Makwana's offer for the club and got a "lets not dwell on the past" answer.  Then he just out of nowhere asks the question.  Hopefully just a coincidence.

Edited Tuesday at 11:04 by Buzz Killington

[Ranaldo Bairn]

3 hours ago, Buzz Killington said:

The most horriffic part of the night for me wasn't the Gardiner revalations.

At one point the Interim Chairman asked for a show of hands for the preference between two options.  1.  Someone takes over the club in the next 9 days or 2. Administration.  The result was about 50:50 for each option.  That's right half of the people who raised their hand would prefer admin over being taken over before admin.

There are a lot of fans who seem to think the whole administration lark will be a simple thing that solves everything.

Including one or two of this very parish, it seems.

[Parttimesupporter]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

If enough shares were issued to cover the loans, then presumably the club would be back in the hands of the directors who were directly or indirectly responsible for the mess it's in now.

Absolutely, though I imagine the thinking when converting debt to equity was discussed was that they would show a bit of humility and allow Savage to bring in competent people to run the club.  Really no good options for ICT at the moment.  As other posters have pointed out, a sale can only involve someone coming in who is willing to burn millions.

[RiG]

I never expected us to kick on and start challenging the likes of Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs or whoever else for regular top three finishes in the top flight after 2015 but the dramatic fall from that high in under ten years is absolutely staggering. There can't be many clubs who have floundered as badly as we have over the last decade. 

[welshbairn]

23 minutes ago, Buzz Killington said:

I just watched that part again (47:10 if anyone cares).  It was straight after someone asked about Ketan Makwana's offer for the club and got a "lets not dwell on the past" answer.  Then he just out of nowhere asks the question.  Hopefully just a coincidence.

I got the impression that he was keener on avoiding admin than Savage and was hoping the crowd would back him up. Could be way off the mark though.

[fishy]

1 hour ago, ICTChris said:

I was told that several of the guys who the club owe all this money to are facing personal bankruptcy if they don't get it back.  They may have said to Savage a month ago they'd write it off but then, when discussing this with their own lawyers or accountants, realised that the full implications of it.

You have to ask yourself why anyone would let a lower league Scottish football club be the basis of your finances.  It's insane.

Are these the directors/shareholders that have subsidised the losses over the years or local businesses that have provided products services to the club and are now needing paid? 

I definitely have a lot more sympathy to the latter group. 

[RednBlackComeback]

6 minutes ago, fishy said:

Are these the directors/shareholders that have subsidised the losses over the years or local businesses that have provided products services to the club and are now needing paid?

My guess is the bulk of the debt is the loans from former directors.

I think AS prefers administration because it would mean that the former directors would not receive (all of) their monies back, and that would be their 'punishment' for putting the club in the state that it's in?