Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/17/2018 in all areas

  1. 13 points
    What an extraordinary statement from CJT. CJT held an AGM on 5th December 2017. As is evident on a very lengthy thread elsewhere, very short notice was given for this meeting and many members received no notification. Due to the short notice, I was unable to attend but it seems as though the meeting was a shambles. I am not aware that CJT have issued any report or minute of that meeting but Caley D summed up his impression of the meeting by posting "Long and short of it.....the society is currently in abeyance due to having insufficient board members. An EGM will be held at some point in the future (no timescale was given) to rectify this and bring it back into proper operating order." In CJT's statement above there is reference to a Board meeting being held; that the Board is now up to 6 members and that this Board is now seeking 4 more members. But there is no mention of holding an EGM. Why not? The statement says "We need to know what’s important to you". I would have thought what is important to us is clear from the 6 page thread elsewhere on the forum. We want a supporters' body which is representative of the supporters, which actively works in the interests of the supporters and which keeps the supporters fully informed. Instead, we appear to have a self-appointed group who, over many years, appear to have done very little in representing supporters' interests, have consistently failed to communicate with the members and who appear to be acting unconstitutionally by simply ignoring what I understand was an unopposed call at the AGM for an EGM. The statement goes on to say "We are actively working to update membership records so we would like to encourage you to respond promptly." Just what exactly are people supposed to respond to? Is this supposed to mean that yet again members are expected contact CJT to tell them we are members? And if we don't, will we be deemed not to be members? The statement refers to a proposed meeting with Graeme Rae. Surely it is quite inappropriate for such a meeting to take place before the EGM takes place? It is vital that communication with the club on behalf of the supporters is carried out by people who have a remit from the supporters. It seems strange that after weeks of silence, this anonymous statement should appear so soon after Davie's recent post in which he stated that he would attempt to call an EGM with the aim of calling for the resignation of the existing Board membersand electing a new Board to take CJT forward. I will be interested to hear what progress Davie is making in due course. But one thing is clear. This mess has to be cleared up ASAP both to protect the voting rights and to give the supporters a genuine voice within the club. We have to have an EGM as soon as possible to establish a new Board to take things forward. That will provide a platform for the existing Board members to state their case and argue as to why they think they should continue in post. It will then be for the members to decide.
  2. 9 points
    Liz, I have thought long and hard about replying to your post in open forum and exacerbating the feelings that you express. I’ve balanced that against the absolute requirement to make points public and open to comment from any quarter. I have to take your post to task on several points. “The current board is only in place at present to protect the 10% shareholding. In my view if the people who are currently listed as board members had not stepped up to resolve all the issues there was a real possibility CJT would fold and the shareholding lost”. This is the first time that this point has been made, despite all of the prior posts on the matter and is not the case. The Board is in place to ensure the proper running of The Society for the benefit of the members. Don Johnstone can make his own points regarding legitimacy (see prior posts) but if the Board of Directors is not properly constituted it is protecting nothing and is in fact endangering the continued existence of CJT if any of the governance bodies decide to investigate and/ or take action. “There has been many appeals for people to step forward to take key roles. There has been letters issued, e-mails sent and also posts on here to try and get people to come forward” Please review all of the posts about this but I recognise it is difficult to recruit to unpaid posts. There has been no widespread appeal. Those who could help you have been actively excluded. Members have been effectively dumped. What you have done is attempted to recruit from a friendly part of the membership, which is understandable but look at the other posts. You have only succeeded in alienating people. “We have been accused of impropritories however, have been working hand in hand with supporters direct who have confirmed that the board is legitimate”. No one has accused you of any impropriety. What they have accused you of (and I continue that) is being wrong. The second part of what you have said here is a case in point. I have spoken to and communicated with Andrew Jenkin of Supporters Direct and his reply was “Yes, we have offered support to CJT by giving them the latest model rules and outlining the process to them (as we do for all members) - but the Trust ought to have gone through the correct procedure to get these approved by the members and voted through at an AGM before submitting these to the FCA. I'm not sure what has been done in respect of this.” I need not point out it’s directly contradicting your points above. You know that you have submitted these rule changes to the FCA without consulting the membership and you have been warned against that on several occasions and refused to respond. You don’t appear to realise the implications of this. They are: section 398 of the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 (Misleading the FCA or PRA: residual cases) makes it an offence for a firm knowingly or recklessly to provide the FCA with information which is false or misleading in a material particular in purported compliance with the FCA's rules or any other requirement imposed by or under the Act. An offence by a body corporate, partnership or unincorporated association may be attributed to an officer or certain other persons (section 400 of the Act (Offences by bodies corporate etc.)) I don’t know who you are getting guidance from but I would ask you to recheck it for your own sake. “An EGM can easily be called and the current board totally replaced if thats what is required, however, im not wasting my time organising that if only 20 people turn up and nobody is prepared to take on the roles that are required”. Liz, this shouldn’t have been said. You are Chair of a Society registered under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 and as such you and your Board of Directors exist to represent your membership. If they require you to organise an AGM or special general meeting you must do it, no matter how irritating you find that. Just don’t express it in an open forum, again for your own sake. “The roles that are currently needed to be filled with people who have the time on their hands to deal with everything are: Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Treasurer, Secretary, Membership secretary. On top of these roles, general board members are also required. Ahead of the last AGM which unfortunately I could not attend, there were requests for new board members to stand, we got nobody. So all those people who are quick to shoot me and the other office bearers, please feel free to step, e-mail you intention to stand for board membership and we can put the wheels in motion to get CJT back on track” I’ll deal with this in its entirety. I know the workload required Liz, it’s not easy. I’m sure that your current Board are behind you but I don’t know if I would want to be described as someone “with time on their hands” There are reasons for there being no answers to requests for new board members prior to the AGM because that call was limited to the process I refer to in paragraph 3. Your Board has engaged in a process of refusal to engage with “certain people” (myself included) or give them information that they are entitled to (not granted by favour) as members on the grounds that you believe them to be simply “causing trouble”. It was Kath Fraser who expressed this and it is directly in opposition to the objects of The Society. With the greatest of respect, none of my posts contain any personalised invective and that’s why I have consistently called for the demission of the entire Board, not any one individual. Neither me, nor anyone that I have spoken to on this matter has been quick to shoot you or anyone else. We have put up with months of silence, indecision, backbiting and wrong headedness. Your board has consistently aligned to a position that appears muddled or wrong. Anything that I have said here is backed up by fact and is attributable and that’s the sole reason that I decided to post this publically. Please organise a Special General Meeting at your convenience. We now have sufficient support to mandate this but it would be better for everyone if you instigated it as Chairperson. My apologies for the length of this post.
  3. 9 points
    An anonymous post, with no details, a 'board' composed of 6 unidentified people, and a vague promise to put things right, whilst appearing not to have a clue who the members are of this organisation. What is your remit to make any announcement at all, and who do you represent? Not the supporters because they have no way of knowing who you are or what you intend to do, especially as they have been shut out and ignored for months, if not years. The whole thing needs scrapped and reformed, with open, identifiable people answerable to their members and supporters. I expect another two to six months of complete silence. Graeme Rae will throw you out on your ear, quite rightly, until a responsible, professional organisation is established.
  4. 9 points
    Glover and others. I think we can now safely say that the current Board of CJT seem either unable or unwilling to represent or inform the membership effectively or at all. There have been seven separate attempts to gain a response from them about what they have been doing on this forum alone in the last couple of months without success. Facebook and website queries are unanswered. It’s nearly dead but we can’t let CJT die and then start a rival supporters group because the voting right within ICTFC that is held by CJT would die with it. As Charles Bannerman says that’s the 3rd or 4th biggest bloc within the club and represents the people who make the club what it is. That can’t be allowed to disappear. I’ve been in touch with SDS and asked advice on how to demit this Board in order that we can get CJT on an even keel and operating properly according to its objectives. The model rules (insofar as we know because CJT cannot or will not confirm what rules they are operating under) state that the Board should be informed of the intention of the membership to call a meeting of the society and that the intention must be supported by 20 members or 5% of the membership (rule 32). The Board at present appears to dispute who are or are not members in their view but anyone with a fob, a £1 share certificate or membership number who paid a one off £1 would be regarded as members for this purpose. We therefore need 20 people to take this forward. If you can DM me on this forum, I can add your name to the list. As soon as we have the minimum number, we call the meeting which has the sole agenda of requiring the immediate resignation of the current Board (Liz MacRae, Cliff Sim, Laura Grant and any others) From the date of that meeting being called, the Board may not do anything – other than preparing for that meeting. It’s questionable if, after the way the AGM finished, they are allowed to do any business now that isn’t direct preparation for a Special General Meeting under rule 36.4 and rule 65. It’s a damn shame it’s come to this but it’s not too late to do something about it. We will need people to serve on a new Board. At present I’m talking to various people about how to move things on and there are ideas. We’ll put them out there after we have got the support to call an EGM and certainly before it happens so that the members can make an informed choice about what happens next.
  5. 8 points
    Absolutely! That is actually what should have been done instead of the procedure adopted earlier this week. An EGM is priority number one and indeed what I find most astonishing about this whole unfortunate saga has been the apparent long term reluctance by those apparent self-appointees to engage directly with the body itself - ie the membership. It looks to me as if CJT has been allowed to go through a period of total inactivity and then, without any recourse whatsoever to the membership, a "board" has declared itself to have been appointed by itself. Presumably one of the agenda items on any requisition for a meeting would need to read something along the lines of: "To hold such votes among members as are necessary to appoint a board, by confirmation in whole or in part of the body which self-declared on 27th February 2018, or by other constitutional means determined by the membership at the meeting."
  6. 7 points
    Getting things back on track.... Regardless of who is on the board going forward, an EGM is required to properly elect that board, sort out the rules issue and ensure the organisation is legal and compliant. If those currently claiming entitlement to be on the board believe they are the right people to do that, then they can stand for election along with anyone else who steps forward. Denying the members that right whilst continuing to defiantly operate in abeyance is not only damaging the society, it's damaging individual reputations. An EGM is going to happen, that cannot be prevented. Better for the society though that they call it and it happens in a timely fashion, than cause further delay and damage to the society (and themselves) by dragging it out.
  7. 7 points
    Whilst I am grateful that we now know the names of the "Board" members of CJT, the rest of the statement is, shall we say, disappointing. Several of the concerns and questions raised following the first statement have simply been ignored. Charles asks valid questions that demand an answer. I will add just one comment to what he has said. The second statement says "we would like to confirm that the board is indeed correctly constituted and valid as we have worked closely with Supporters Direct to ensure that this is the case." The original statement says "Working closely with Supporters Direct Scotland we have now been able to register the model rules". I take it from this that the "correctly constituted and valid" Board has been appointed in line with newly registered model rules and/or constitution/articles of association. As it would appear from the statement that a Board can appoint itself with no reference to the membership. it is therefore vital that members can have access to these documents. I would be grateful if the CJT would make these document available to the members as a matter of urgency. These documents should, of course, be available on the CJT website but that website has had no content put on it since it was established nearly 2 years ago.
  8. 7 points
    Ok, so now we know who the six individuals are, we can move on to the next questions: In what appears (correct me if I am wrong) to be the absence for some time of a fully concluded AGM or General Meeting of any kind, what was the process by which the six board members were appointed? Which of them hold board positions and offices still active since the last properly concluded and transacted General Meeting of the Society? Which of them have been coopted, and what are the Board's powers of cooption under the Society's Constitution/ Articles of Association? By which, if any, other means have any of them been appointed to the Board or to their offices? How much input has the Society's membership had into the formation of this board? Hence, to what extent have the Board's actions carried a mandate from the membership? And indeed, has the Society's membership even been properly defined?
  9. 7 points
    I’m swithering between being really hacked off or delighted at the OP from CJT. The statement is disingenuous, shows an utter disregard for the membership and displays an arrogance that people who are members of CJT really need to challenge. It’s dreadful but judging by the replies thus far the challenge is exactly what is happening. This Board (whoever it might be) cannot be constituted properly and cannot be valid. The last meeting (the AGM) broke up after being mismanaged (as was the case with the previous AGM) and the Board at that time was left without sufficient members to continue (2 or 3 depending on your viewpoint about electing a treasurer). The Board was not in any way endorsed from the floor. The only thing that was agreed was that Laura should redouble efforts to establish an accurate membership figure and then come back to that membership with a properly constructed AGM/EGM under the rules. No information was given (despite repeated requests) about the rules being submitted for approval or any other business. No minutes have been published. The Board were not “given time” to do anything in regard to appointing casual or co-opted directors and its rules don’t allow for it in the numbers stated. I am told that the input from SDS has been limited to giving CJT the model rules and advising on completing them. Nothing more. It’s important to state that people on this forum and elsewhere have not “borne with” CJT on this. They have become increasingly concerned and exasperated to the point of moving to demit this Board and that is presumably what has prompted this fairly disgraceful statement. DD has asked all of the questions that I would have, I’m not holding my breath on answers. Let’s just get to an EGM and elect a Board who can actually do the job. We still need people to commit to putting their names to the call for a special meeting, can I respectfully ask you to give me a direct message with your membership number and I’ll add you to the list and I will respond to each and every message. We need as many as possible.
  10. 7 points
    I think it's quite important to supporters to know who the six board members are?
  11. 7 points
    We can't blame the pitch or the referees, guys. We are bang average and the reasons are various: small core support, poor club management over past 2.5 years, poor recruitment, poor discipline, hangovers from previous regimes etc. My concern is not this season, but whether we can sustain another year as a full-time club. That is where we are at - either next season or the next, we have to accept the real possibility of having to go part-time. That is the magnitude of the failings over the last 2 seasons.
  12. 7 points
    A bit of a strange one that. We didn't play particularly well but we put far more pressure on their goal and could have won that comfortably. We gave away 2 soft goals at one end and had 2 disallowed at the other, hit the woodwork twice and had one cleared off the line. Despite having more of the game and more of the chances, we had a very lacklustre feel about us for such an important game. I don't think anyone played particularly badly but equally, I don't anyone played particularly well. It seemed to me that players were well aware of the importance of the game and froze somewhat. There was a nervousness about the play and despite the number of near misses, there was a reluctance to shoot, particularly from Polworth after good work to give himself a half chance on 3 or 4 occasions. I've always been a fan of Doran but he looks some way from the player he was before his injury. He did little wrong today but there was little of the buzzing energy and ball carrying which was such a feature of his game. Hopefully more game time will strengthen and sharpen him up. A pre-injury Doran would do some serious damage to some of the defences in this league. Whilst the play-offs now seem most unlikely, I think we need to cast our minds back to where we were at the start of the season. The principle goal at the end of the season must be survival and that should be comfortably achieved. The focus should be shifting to make a serious challenge for promotion next season.
  13. 6 points
    Er....As I have aged I have become more and more convinced that the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Sam) is by far the best way to communicate. After all, Charlie, least said, soonest mended...eh? Canadians always say "eh"? after each short utterance just to make sure that the party to whom the remark is addressed is still on the same page and has not yet succumbed to boredom and gone into a deep sleep. Please remember to say it a lot to me in future Charles. Greatly appreciated. Thank you. very much. And, with the best intentions, but mostly for my personal understanding of your speeches out of Hamlet or summat, , please do try the KISS principle. Just give it a whirl. I know, I really know you are an intellectual person, well-read and daily converse with the Oracle, but I'm 80 years old today and co-operating would be the nicest present you could give me via this Forum. Get it, eh?
  14. 6 points
    Leaving aside the personal nature of some of the above I don't think it was a big secret to most fans that the club were budgeting and spending for mid table in the premiership? Relegation was always going to have real financial consequences as has now become the case. I would liken it to having a job with a good wage and managing your mortgage commitments etc but then suddenly you get made redundant? I think that scenario would apply to a lot of us and the way the football club was run is no different. Last time we were relegated the money was found to get us out of the hole we were in and thankfully worked quickly. This time the suggestion was that the same would happen, have a look at the original ST renewal letter that was sent. How many of the players mentioned there are actually still here? Even if you do accept the argument that we can have more players for less dosh we are still clearly living way above our means. Crowds and hospitality income is falling and may well become even poorer come renewal time in the summer. Personally (and It is only my opinion on what I see and hear) I think the current board are good at talking a good talk but the jury is well and truly out on whether they are up the job of sustaining our current setup or in fact taking it forward again.
  15. 6 points
    It has been announced that ex-Provost Allan Sellar died yesterday at the age of 93. Clearly , as Provost for 12 years from 1980-92, Allan's overall contribution to public life was considerable but on this forum, I think it's important to acknowledge what he did for Inverness Caledonian Thistle, especially in the early days. He had been succeeded as Provost by Bill Fraser by the time the ICT formation process even started, but he was hugely supportive of the campaign to have an Inverness team playing in the SFL. This was so much so that he was chosen by the club to kick the first ceremonial ball at the official opening of the Caledonian Stadium in 1996 (a wonderful lob towards the goal at the North end which even Barry Wilson - I think - had some difficulty taming!) A few years later, in 2001, he became one of the founding trustees of the Inverness Caledonian Thistle Charitable Trust which saw the club out of its extreme financial difficulties at that time.
  16. 6 points
    How many times has there been horrible conditions on the A9 at the high passes whilst no concern at sea level, plenty. How many times has there been a concern for RCFC or ICTFC staff and fans during these times....not many. I'm not saying either situation is correct but double standards are in play. If the weather warning is less than amber then the game should be played.
  17. 6 points
    So let me get this straight - what we now have is an anonymous claim that a (so far - BUMP!) anonymous group of six people has apparently, and in the absence for some time of a General Meeting of the Society, appointed itself to run the said society (if it still legally exists) and hence control 10% of the voting rights (one of the biggest single allocations) of a company with a turnover of several million pounds per annum. Presumably applications for the remaining four positions should be lodged with the Society's secretary - Mr D Trotter, Nelson Mandela House, Peckham, or the Chairperson Mr A Daley, c/o The Winchester Club, East London.
  18. 6 points
    I actually regret buying mine x 4 this season. Ive missed a few games which normally doesnt worry me. However off the pitch several things have annoyed me and it doesnt feel like value for money. They keep shutting the north stand toilets ( how that saves money I dont know?). Entering the sports bar has now become such a chore if you sit in the north stand as well. Im willing to accept that things dont always go right on the park but for the money we are paying I do expect the club to get the basics right!
  19. 6 points
    I thought we had loaned out Baird, yet it appeared Brad McKay was playing for Morton the day! Cost us with his mistake for the first goal but he made at least another couple of errors that could and should've seen Morton further ahead. We were second to every loose ball and lacked the desire and energy that Morton showed. They deserved their 3 points, no doubt about that! We improved slightly for a spell in the second half, going 4-4-2 with Austin coming on after half time. Alas it turns out he's made of glass and lasted all of 20 minutes!!! It's a bizarre situation that sees the club emergency loaning a striker to another club in our same league whilst said club can see us off comfortably on our own patch without him ????? Don't despair though the playoffs are still in our sights ........the relegation playoffs that is!😭😭😭
  20. 6 points
    I confess that I started out with a great deal of sympathy for the current office bearers for a number of reasons. However, with months and months passing without any information or any impression that anything is being done with any sense of urgency to retrieve the situation I confess that that sympathy is now wearing thin.
  21. 5 points
    Are you, by any chance, the reincarnation of a turkey that voted for Christmas? You can harbour the expectation that somebody else's money should subsidise your football if you like, but the big and obvious dangers of this scenario are that the sugar daddy has absolute control over your club and, of far greater and even more obvious concern, there's the issue of the future, or lack of it, if... or more likely when... the sugar daddy withdraws the subsidy. Remember Nairn County? And what next for Dundee United? And then there's the "saviour" that David Murray used to be hailed as at Ibrox? Sometimes on CTO, I'm just not at all clear as to whose agendas on here are against - or very occasionally for - whom in terms of Mcgil/savco or Sutherland-Tulloch or Muirfield Mills. The board is currently controlled by Muirfield Mills who have put over half a million pounds of their own money into this club.... money which has been vital in securing its viability over the last five years or so. But you now tell us that you want these people removed.... more or less in the same breath as your earlier derogatory comments about "the builder". I will take this to be a generic term referring to David Sutherland and Tullochs - who in recent months have, in the first case, donated quarter of a million to keep the club solvent and, in the second, donated the stadium fabric back as the last stage of serial subsidies worth around £6 million. For someone who is so keen to get a sugar daddy through the door, you seem to have an incredible desire then to turn round and give these benefactors a right good kicking. This seems to be by no means unique among ICT fans..... and it doesn't exactly serve as encouragement for any benefactor to put their money into an organisation whose supporters will then turn round and bite them.
  22. 5 points
    This statement concerns me. I understand and sympathise deeply for the personal tragedies that have befallen two of the board members in the last few months. Despite the 10% shareholding in the club at a time of turmoil, those circumstances would make CJT quite irrelevant if it happened to most of us in our own lives. However, as unsympathetic as this may sound, those on the board should look inward at that point. That is where the other (4?) members need to pick up the slack and take on things that Laura and Liz may have understandingly let lapse. If they cannot or will not take up the slack, then quite frankly, why are they on the board in the first place? What were they doing while L&L were grieving? I note the comment about getting rules registered and accounts signed etc. Are these the same rules that were already registered back in 2012 or thereabouts or are these new rules? If new rules then how were these approved without approval from the membership? The membership doesnt answer to the board. its the other way round !!! I note the comment about now having 6 members. Again, the same question. How was this board elected and when? A properly elected board, still within its defined term, can legitimately co-opt others onto it but there is no clear indication of when/where the mandate was confirmed or extended. The previous board cannot simply declare itself as the new board without the proper process. This is not some informal committee operating in the way that the old supporters club used to be able to, this is a formal setup with legal rules and processes which, from the outside looking in do not appear to be getting followed. How are you actively working to update memberships ? Where can people go to check if they are members or not ? Over the years the society has offered both term memberships and permanent memberships. How can a former member find out which they are. I am in the same boat as you here. I am, and always have been, willing to do whatever I can to help ICT. At various stages over the last 25 years I have served on the supporters club board (pre-CJT), have assisted the club with various technical things, operated this site as both an unofficial and official site, and provided hosting and/or websites where requested to numerous groups associated with ICT including but not limited to Highland March, CJT, Social Club and ICT itself. We (I) stand here again willing to offer help to any legitimate group that is associated with ICT. The only condition on that offer is that any group offered services or resources must have transparency of deed and actions and be operating legally under any constraints placed on them by law or by other external agreements. The forum platform itself is open to all and as users are responsible for their own posts then simply posting here is open and free to all without constraint. One of the frustrating things about CJT (for me) has indeed been the personalities involved. At least 3 of the people I think could do a great job for CJT and who I have varying degrees of friendship and/or interaction with, are at odds with each other. These are all really good people, all of whom are intensely focused on the well-being of ICT, and I think having a mediator could possibly be a good way forward. To regain any legitimacy that it previously may have had CJT needs to put a really solid foundation in place and for at least two of those 3 I refer to -- both of whom have indicated they have no desire to be on the board -- to be content that the rules and processes are in place for the society to follow in years to come. The current board can stay in place (if re-elected) but if there is any suggestion of impropriety or bypass of process still lingering then its pointless because any legitimacy they do manage to regain will not be retained.
  23. 5 points
    There remains a great deal unsaid or ambiguous. It is good that some progress has been made and some limited information shared. However, members have an entitlement to question and, if necessary, challenge the actions of the office bearers. The organisation belongs to the members and is not the private domain of the committee. These are extraordinary circumstances and the only way proper way forward now is to call an Extraordinary General Meeting. There remains doubt and suspicion on the part of some about the actions and motives of others. That is not healthy and it's a boil that needs to be lanced before the whole body perished through sepsis. Delaying calling a meeting is merely putting off the inevitable.
  24. 5 points
    I appreciate that there exists bad blood between former board members, those who purport to be current officials and various others who may have been disappointed at not been elected in the past but acrimony and public blood letting does not help. If we are united in one thing it's the continuing existence of the club and with the hard fought for fan representation and share holding. It doesn't really matter how we got here. It's clear that mistakes have been made and matters probably concealed but there is no nothing to be gained from blaming or finger pointing. What is important is that the matter is retrieved before it becomes too late. The OP is a modest start but those who have chosen the 'burden' of office bearers must now stand up to the plate and be more forthcoming or be prepared to step aside voluntarily.
  25. 5 points
    I absolutely agree that CJT need to discuss the voting rights with the Club Board before anything else, but in order to do that, it is essential to establish that the people representing CJT are doing so legitimately and have the backing of the membership. We need an EGM and then it should be the CJT Board which emerges from that which takes the issue forward.
  26. 5 points
    For a sports journalist, that question betrays a surprising ignorance.
  27. 5 points
    That was far from the worst we have played this season but we remain largely toothless. Boy do I wish I had stayed at home and watched the rugby on TV ! The promotion play offs are beyond us this season now but we remain at risk of the relegation play off place and I would happily trade victory over Dumbarton in the Irn Bru final for beating them in the two remaining league fixtures we have against them. The frustrating thing is that, on our day, we can match any side in the division including St Mirren. The trouble is we have problems with consistency, commitment and, worst of all, discipline that the the teams in the top half of the division don't have to nearly the same extent. We need to give Daniel McKay a run of starts to see what he is capable of. There is much to be said for the old axiom that if you're good enough and old enough and experience of playing regularly in this league will stand him in better sted for next season.
  28. 5 points
    One thing the club board could perhaps do is to establish exactly what the situation is with regard to CJT and make a public statement of the outcome principally, as Glover says, for the benefit of the fans whose body this is meant to be. If whoever were previously involved in CJT are unable to respond to the likes of queries by posters on this forum, then I would suggest that it falls to the club board to achieve clarity - better still, progress - in respect of 10% of the Company's voting rights.
  29. 5 points
    I've been a big supporter of Vigurs this season and think he has been our stand out player. Yesterday I was less impressed and thought he gave a rather mixed performance. His free kick when he passed the ball to the guy at the end of the wall was one of the worst free kicks I have ever seen, but he also had others which were poor including some short ones when everyone had gone into the box. I was particularly concerned to see him and Warren having a right go at each other early in the first half. I have no idea what it was about but clearly that sort of thing needs to get stamped out. I sort of got the impression that Vigurs was sitting back a bit more as if he was protecting Warren. On the plus side, he didn't get booked. A more pertinent question is to ask about Warren's performance. Sad to say, but his best days are gone. We look far more assured at the back with Donaldson and Mackay as the central pairing. With a limited squad like we have, there will be times when there is really no alternative but to play Warren, but I think it is time to hand over the captaincy to Vigurs. I doubt that will happen but the manager certainly needs to get a grip on leadership on the park issues.
  30. 4 points
    The way wythank15 talks about Hughes you'd think he was the only ICT manager that had ever lost good players from his side and had budgetary constraints. Also worth remembering that our good form earlier in the season came with a front two of Baird and Bell who not only buzzed about the front line to create and take chances (less so in Bairds case!) but both did a power of work defending from the front which made us a lot more difficult to beat.
  31. 4 points
    No, I'm simply putting your CTO comments - current and historical - into a realistic context. This in particular may help forum users, especially more recently joined ones, to evaluate them - which I think is very appropriate and necessary. So, to provide a little more detail than in my previous post.... for an extended period on here some years ago, you waged a constant campaign of criticism and undermining of the stewardship of this club, prominent within which was the constant highlighting of any and every difficulty - real and imaginary - of which you could conceive. Then, by a process which has never been entirely clear and despite your having seriously antagonised those in charge at the time, you suddenly became part of the "establishment" as a "volunteer". Equally suddenly, more or less overnight indeed, the tone of your CTO posts switched from arch-antagonist to those of an arch-apologist for an administration which could suddenly do no wrong. In consequence, some would argue that there was a great deal of "credibility" indeed in the phrase "e*se-licking happy clapper", which was IHE's penetrating observation on this new status. Alongside this ran considerable uncertainty, reflecting a potential conflict of interest, as to whether some "CaleyD" posts were personal observations or being offered in your capacity as a club functionary on behalf of the club. Meanwhile, and coinciding remarkably with you ceasing to hold any position within the club, the "worm has turned" again, the happy clapping has stopped and board members once more have to use toilet paper in considerable quantities. This is a process which is more than evident from the stark contrast between your more recent, suddenly once again negative posts, and your earlier, persistent assurances that the set-up which led to over-resourced relegation and financial crisis, was infallible. I trust this puts into useful context a wide variety of "CaleyD" posts over an extended period of time.
  32. 4 points
    It also looks as if Caley D may have reverted to his previous status following his "e*se-licking happy clapper" period.
  33. 4 points
    I am removing all off-topic posts from this thread after requests for this to be done. Its a serious topic and while I understand some are trying to lighten the thread, its counter-productive. The removed posts are not deleted, just hidden for now and may be split off to general nonsense if anyone wants to continue with them.
  34. 4 points
    This is complete nonsense. As Davie says, the holding of a General Meeting isn't something that can be rejected by a self-appointed body, arguably motivated by self interest/preservation, simply based on convenient speculation that enough people MIGHT not turn up. It's a constitutional necessity for goodness sake and, according to Davie's post, apparently a legal one as well! What is being suggested is, incredibly, that a self-appointed body should be allowed to continue to operate by way of deliberately withholding the members' right to elect a constitutional one. What decides the validity of a General Meeting is whether a quorum turns up, not claims from the members of a self-appointed body that this potential challenge to their current status is a waste of time. If, at such a meeting, it did emerge that "nobody" was "prepared to take on the roles required", then if the 10% voting power was the absolute priority that has been stated, there are ways and means of preserving it. My first thought would be pre-specified agenda item for a constitutional amendment to allow trusteeship of the 10% vote to be invested in a small group appointed by the meeting. My interest in this CJT issue was sparked several months ago by the ongoing lapse in CJT's important activities as a supporters' organisation. Unfortunately subsequent events - or lack of them - have caused my previously neutral viewpoint to evolve into something rather different. I now find myself completely dismayed at what looks like an ongoing strategy of silence and of the exclusion of the membership, alongside ambiguous and misleading statements apparently aimed at keeping a self-appointed board of directors in control of such affairs as still exist. That sort of approach, I would prefer to leave to Putin.
  35. 4 points
    the amber weather warning is only on the east coast and the trains are running from perth to inverness and Dundee to Aberdeen then onto inverness the a96 is open and clear as is the a9. who else remembers the horrendous journey down to easter road for a league cup semi against hearts on a sunday with no public transport in worse conditions than now on the a9?
  36. 4 points
    Two points...... 1. That board is not constitutional, even by the newly registered ruleset (see point 2). As per the recently registered rules... I've removed irrelevant points from the quoted text, but a full copy of the rules are attached...File 180108_ictss_rules.pdf. (As previous requests for copies of anything from the society board were not met, I paid to get these directly from the FCA.) As per the message from CJT we have 6 Directors. 3 Elected, 2 External (Appointed) and 1 Co-opted. That would appear to satisfy the rule that there must be a minimum of 5 directors...however! The 3 elected are fine and the one co-opted is within the rules for no more than one third co-opted. However, as per rule 64...external directors should be considered to be in addition to the number of directors specified in the rules, and not part of. This means that the board make-up is not constitutional. Even if you argue that the two external directors can be included in the number then the board is still not constitutional as (per rule 64) the total number of external and co-opted board members must be in the minority and that is not the case with the current board. I also fail to see how they can invite people to fill an additional 4 positions without calling an EGM to have them (and/or others) elected properly. 2. The rules registered with the FCA have not been approved by a General Meeting of the organisation and differ from the rules approved by the AGM in 2012. There has been no resolution at any GM since then to approve any alternative rules. The two main differences are that the number required for an operational board has been reduced (previously between 6 and 12, it now shows between 5 and 10)....and the rule that allowed for members to demand a performance audit of the society has been removed. Given the recent goings on, I find this to be too much of a coincidence. Copy of the rules as agreed by the society AGM in 2012 are also attached to allow people to do their own comparison. File 120817_ictss_rules.pdf As can be seen from the attached, that submission of the rules has been passed to the FCA with a declaration that they have been adopted as per the society's rules. That is clearly not the case and you can all draw your own conclusions as to the implications of that and decide how you proceed from here.
  37. 4 points
    I think the biggest issue for fans renewing, is not the performances on the pitch. Your team can be rubbish but you can feel united. The biggest issue is if people feel wanted. Considering the fall in already small attendances and absolutely rubbish facilities suggest many don't feel that the club want them...and who can blame them?
  38. 4 points
    The last time we got relegated the club handled the situation pretty well and we saw an increase in season ticket sales. Further boosted by healthy half season ticket sales, despite promotion being far from certain at the halfway mark. Key, though, was that the board (back then) didn't just ask fans to put their hands in their pockets, they backed the call with a £1 Million commitment to getting the club back into the SPL (as it was then)....and delivered.
  39. 4 points
    If we want the team to have a chance to succeed next season, price has to be the same to try and maintain the level of income coming into the club. Dropping the price will not lead to an increase in season ticket sales as it has been proven that reducing the ticket prices for certain games does not equate to a larger attendance. We need to try and generate more interest amongst the public in Inverness but given the lack of support from them in the past, I am at a loss as to how to do that.
  40. 4 points
    Is it not when Warren came back into the side?
  41. 4 points
    Looks like the excellent run of form and clean sheets (that had us looking like a shoe-in for the play offs) is well and truly over. Can't help but see the decline starting roughly around the time of Ravens departure, and subsequent re-shuffle of the back 4.
  42. 4 points
    I suspect the “emergency” refers to our need to reduce the wage bill.
  43. 4 points
    More likely to keep his job than Owen Coyle.
  44. 4 points
    folks, I'm grateful for the support. I'll make it clear now that I want neither office nor a long term role in this. the most important thing therefore is to get people on board who are willing and able to form a new board that will operate in the interests of the fans. People have already expressed an interest. a modernised and streamlined cjt has a crucial role to play this season and beyond.
  45. 4 points
    Charles, I've been in touch with supporters direct today to see if we can move this forward. hope to post something as soon as possible. this is a situation that now needs to be sorted.
  46. 4 points
    Tommy ("Grass grows by the inch and is ruined by the foot"😊) has a 30 year-long reputation for keeping and sustaining a fine football pitch. It therefore seems unlikely that the reason for the current state of the pitch has anything to do with the capability of the ground staff, but will far more probably be something to do with availability of resources.
  47. 4 points
    I agree re the pitch. It would be even worse without Tommy & co doing their best.
  48. 4 points
    Interesting game, just a couple of things to talk about.... 1st half Odd start to the game. Crusaders played some decent stuff for the opening 10 mins and we looked like a side who hadn't played in weeks. Once we got to that mark we took control though. Crusaders had actually started with a relatively conservative line-up with 1 up top and leaving Whyte & Owens on the bench. Despite this we were able to cut through at will with Polworth in particular finding pockets of space in which to play in Mulraney. I felt we were pretty wasteful at times and should have been 4 or 5 up by the time the half time whistle went. Even though we were dominating it was concerning how much space Crusaders were able to get down the right hand side of our defence. I lost count of the number of times Heatley/Murray found space in that channel. I'd really like to see us move Mckay back inside to partner Donaldson and new right back. 2nd half Not sure what was said at half time but the team came out thinking the game was done. No urgency at all and it bordered on being unprofessional. You can give Crusaders some credit for changing it up but if we play like that against a Championship team we will be on the receiving end of a shoeing. The sending off was a little strange. I'm pretty sure that for his first booking it was Vigurs that committed a foul, it certainly wasn't Mckay. In saying that though the 2nd booking was monumentally stupid. The Crusaders bench unsurprisingly had a part to play in that, Baxter is known for his whinging and theatrics to refs. Player wise: Ridgers was excellent as was Polworth. Donaldson was OK but seemed to spend time worrying about Warren. Bell and Chalmers despite his goal had poor games. Chalmers seems to let the game pass him by a little too much for my liking, never seems to take it by the scruff. Mulraney was dangerous as ever although the final ball swung from outstanding to atrocious with nothing inbetween. Oakley is a strange player, despite his size he can't win a header and struggles with his first touch. However he's a lot quicker that I thought, has decent movement and runs the channels well. I' not sure what type of player he'd be best beside. Glad to the win but we made hard work of it. If we hadn't held on we would be asking questions about the mental capacity of the side.
  49. 3 points
    Same sign on A82. No poor road conditions anywhere near! Useless
  50. 3 points
    I think before any meeting between CJT and the chairman it is better to address the issues within CJT, firstly not automatically releasing names & positions of board members and the process that facilitated this. This is how far away CJT is currently (disregarding the fact that there has been no viable website for years) as an example, if this is really needed, to highlight the yawning gap in where we are: http://www.pompeytrust.com/our-board