05: Full Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DoofersDad last won the day on March 19

DoofersDad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,200 Excellent

1 Follower

About DoofersDad

  • Rank
    Midfield General

Recent Profile Visitors

5,111 profile views
  1. Dunfermline -V- Inverness CT

    I agree that few people would have suggested we would win the Cup and finish 3rd in the league that season - but only because of the complete mess Hughes made of the previous season. When he took the reigns we were 2nd with 28 points from 13 games. In the remaining 25 games we managed just 29 points. That's flirting with relegation form despite having the best squad we have ever had and playing in a seriously weakened division (No Rangers and Hibs and Hearts in self inflicted freefall). In the cup, having comfortably beaten Morton 4-0 in the last game before Hughes' arrival, we stuttered to a narrow victory against Stranraer after drawing the first game and then got thrashed 5-0 at home to Dundee Utd. We could and should have had European football a season earlier.
  2. How can I sponsor Caley?

    Blair, if you are for real, why ask on here? Why not just phone the club and ask to speak with Danny MacDonald the COO? If you have the kind of money to offer in sponsorship that would help the club in a significant way, you will be made most welcome. Can you stretch to a new playing surface? It could be called the Blair pitch project.
  3. Game 32 - Dundee Utd (A) 17 Mar

    HT 1-0 FT 2-0 ICT Polworth Opp McDonald Crowd 5871
  4. Highland Derbies Next Season

    So, if we can just get the message across that God doesn’t actually exist, that would be the problem solved! Top marks, Charles, for getting the reformation into a thread about Highland derbies!
  5. Game 31* - Dunfermline (A)13 Mar

    HT 1-1 FT 2-2 ICT Polworth Opp Clarke Crowd 5072
  6. Game xx - Livingston (A) 10 Mar POSTPONED

    HT 1-0 FT 2-0 ICT Oakley Opp Hardie Crowd 1012

    Apparently the bad weather delayed things at the SFA. The club hopes to have tickets available for season ticket holders on Monday and for general sale on Tuesday.
  8. CLUB STATEMENT : AGM & Annual Report : 23/11/17

    The club have announced extensions to the sponsorship deals with the 3 main sponsors. Statement on the club website is as follows. "Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC are delighted to confirm their continued partnership with their three main sponsors. Solicitors & Estate Agents McEwan Fraser Legal have put pen to paper on a contract extension for a third year to have their logo on the front of the home and away kits for season 2018/19. At the same time, Korrie Plumbing and Subway have extended their agreements with the club to have their logos on the back of the home and away kits next season. ICT club chairman Graham Rae is delighted to have the continued support of the key sponsors next season. He said: “We look forward to building on the successful partnership we have built up with McEwan Fraser Legal, Korrie Plumbing and Subway in the new season. It’s great to have such big names in the commercial world wanting to be a big part or our revival and return to the Premiership.”" On the face of it this is welcome news but there is nothing in the statement to indicate whether the level of sponsorship has changed.
  9. Toothless ICT v Winless Brechin - GAME OFF

    So it’s apparently fine for Kilmarnock fans to make the long journey to Aberdeen through the snowfields of Central Scotland in order to play a cup match that will have some TV exposure.
  10. Caley Jags Together - Update

    Ah. Thanks. I had wrongly assumed that the earlier version of the Rules you posted yesterday was the one currently in force. I hadn't realised they had been approved in 2002 but never submitted. I guess I've now got a bit more reading to do, although I think the general gist of my lengthy post still holds largely true in the sense of the actions required. I also note that the version submitted for registration in October of last year also seems to have omitted the section allowing for postal ballots on significant issues.
  11. Caley Jags Together - Update

    Thanks Davie. Yes. That is a rather important omission as a performance audit would be a very practical way of identifying issues which need to be addressed. I was going to suggest in another post that the need to carry out a performance audit should perhaps be a topic for a resolution for a special general meeting.
  12. Crowd v Crusaders

    Eh? My post was in response to one by Kingsmills who was suggesting a boycott of the TV companies, not a boycott of attending the matches. I didn't respond to your earlier post, but seeing as you mention it again, I don't think a boycott of attending games would work either. Personally, I am not going to stay away from supporting my team just to p*ss off a TV company which couldn't care less whether I'm there or not. They are only concerned about how many watch on TV. Personally I can't think too many people who choose to watch a match on TV are going to switch off when they see a smaller crowd.
  13. Caley Jags Together - Update

    Thanks to CaleyD for yesterday posting links to both the new Rules and the old Rules. They make for interesting reading and I would recommend anyone who wishes to participate meaningfully in this constitutional debate to have a read of them. Whatever the situation was before the current Board of CJT took over, it has recently got a whole lot worse. We have several people who have expressed concern about the unconstitutional way in which some matters have been dealt with by the Board and therefore it is important that the Board's Rules are seen to be followed by all parties going forward. But what Rules, if any, are now legally valid? The old Rules state that amendments to the rules must be submitted as an "extraordinary resolution" at a general meeting of the Society and that they need to be approved by a majority of 75% of the votes cast. The new Rules have been submitted to, and now registered by, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In submitting them, the Secretary signed a Statutory Declaration stating that the amendment has been made in the manner provided in the rules. Given that these new Rules were not presented to a general meeting and were not approved by the members, the seriousness of the action, which Davie alludes to above, cannot be underestimated. But whilst there is clearly a serious legal liability issue for the Board, there is also a serious practical problem for the Society as a whole. The Rules are deemed to be in force when registered with the FCA. The new Rules have been registered but were not approved by the membership as the old Rules require. And the old Rules are no longer those registered with the FCA. So which, are the legally valid rules ? Or are neither of them now legally valid? I would suggest the Board seeks urgent legal advice on this and takes the appropriate steps to rectify the situation. In the meantime, I would assume the old Rules should apply both because the new Rules have not been approved by the membership and because they were submitted to the registration body with an untrue statement. On the plus side, there do not appear to be too many differences between the old and the new Rules and therefore using the old Rules until the new Rules have been appropriately registered should not lead to major problems. There is clearly a need for a Special General Meeting (SGM) for a number of reasons. (Note the term in the rules is "special" and not "extraordinary"). But it is important to note that under the Rules (old and new!") "no business other than that stated in the notice of the meeting shall be conducted at the meeting." The meeting will not allow members to raise issues from the floor. So whilst there is an urgency for a meeting for other reasons, it is also important that the agenda of the meeting is carefully thought through and that as a priority, it deals with the Rules issue. I would respectfully suggest that in the notice of the meeting the Board provides the members with copies of the old and new rules together with a document which details the changes and the reasons for them. Provided that nobody identifies any serious problems with the amendments then there should be no reason why the new rules cannot be approved by the required 75% of votes cast. Sorry for the length of this but it seems to me that having an assurance that our Rules are constitutionally and legally valid is a basic precursor of moving forward. All other actions require to be carried out within the Rules and we cannot have their legitimacy undermined because the Rules used were not valid.
  14. Toothless ICT v Winless Brechin - GAME OFF

    I suppose if the police are advising that folk from the Brechin area should not travel, then there is little option but to call it off. Given the chaos there has been in some parts of the country it is understandable if on-going travel advise is on the "precautionary" side. How folk on the continent must laugh at us! A basic principle is a match should go on if:- 1. The pitch is playable 2. The access road and pavements around the ground are clear of ice and snow. 3. The away side assess that it is safe for the team to travel. Fans live all over the place and it will be safe for some to travel and not for others. It must be up to individuals to listen to advice and decide for themselves as to whether it is safe to travel or not. We are all accountable for our own decisions. I wonder how much money the club has spent on using the under soil heating to make the pitch playable only for the match to be postponed.
  15. Toothless ICT v Winless Brechin - GAME OFF

    It's the sort of stupid thing the SPFL would do. If a pitch is playable and both sets of teams and supporters can safely get to the ground, why call it off? Each game should be treated on its merits. Or by "safety concerns", do they mean they are looking to have Monday off as a "snow day" without the need to come in and look at referees reports etc?