A while ago, it seemed to be a big complaint on here that there was poor commication between ICT and the fans. With Boardroom Banter being brought in, do you feel more connected to the club, or has it had an adverse effect?

A while ago, it seemed to be a big complaint on here that there was poor commication between ICT and the fans. With Boardroom Banter being brought in, do you feel more connected to the club, or has it had an adverse effect?

While it's a great idea, I feel the Board are very picky about what they answer and what they ignore. The questions that the fans really want answers to remain unanswered.

A while ago, it seemed to be a big complaint on here that there was poor commication between ICT and the fans. With Boardroom Banter being brought in, do you feel more connected to the club, or has it had an adverse effect?

While it's a great idea, I feel the Board are very picky about what they answer and what they ignore. The questions that the fans really want answers to remain unanswered.

To be fair it's a big step forward and if there are any questions which you feel should be answered under The supporters charter the go to this link and ask someone at the club directly.

To be fair it's a big step forward and if there are any questions which you feel should be answered under The supporters charter the go to this link and ask someone at the club directly.

The sort of questions I want to ask would be totally avoided by everyone at Board level. Really the sort of questions that I wish the media would ask, but they don't have the balls for fear of losing all contact with the club.

To be fair it's a big step forward and if there are any questions which you feel should be answered under The supporters charter the go to this link and ask someone at the club directly.

The sort of questions I want to ask would be totally avoided by everyone at Board level. Really the sort of questions that I wish the media would ask, but they don't have the balls for fear of losing all contact with the club.

Then both you and I, and probably anyone reading this thread, know that the sort of questions you want answered will be best asked by a shareholder at an AGM, my advice would be to join the supporters trust and get the question asked on your behalf. Boardroom banter is named that because it is a bit of banter between us and the club, did you honestly expect that the club are going to air their dirty laundry on a public forum? You also have to realise that boardroom banter answers are an official statement from the club which could be potentially damaging if picked up by the media or other parties, no businessman in their right mind would answer some of the questions asked on a public forum.

Boardroom banter serves a great purpose in the fact that some of the less crucial, but important to some fans, points about the running of the club can be addressed. We are also always given a reason if our questions are not answered which is comendable.

Then both you and I, and probably anyone reading this thread, know that the sort of questions you want answered will be best asked by a shareholder at an AGM, my advice would be to join the supporters trust and get the question asked on your behalf. Boardroom banter is named that because it is a bit of banter between us and the club, did you honestly expect that the club are going to air their dirty laundry on a public forum? You also have to realise that boardroom banter answers are an official statement from the club which could be potentially damaging if picked up by the media or other parties, no businessman in their right mind would answer some of the questions asked on a public forum.

Boardroom banter serves a great purpose in the fact that some of the less crucial, but important to some fans, points about the running of the club can be addressed. We are also always given a reason if our questions are not answered which is comendable.

I already am a member of the Supporters Trust. To be honest I wouldn't want to put the Trust into that sort of position - If they were to ask those sorts of questions on my behalf, any discussions would be likely to become very heated indeed.

I already am a member of the Supporters Trust. To be honest I wouldn't want to put the Trust into that sort of position - If they were to ask those sorts of questions on my behalf, any discussions would be likely to become very heated indeed.

You are, however, willing to put CTO in that position? Ask the question in the Boardroom banter forum or in this one, you can be assured that it will be seen by the club. I would say that the announcement on the official site regarding the youth set up may well have been prompted by posts in this forum so you never know, if your question is provocative enough to stir up a reaction within the fan base it may result in a statement from within. Failing that read the supporters charter and send in an email to the club worded in such a way that they have to respond in order to stay within the rules then you will get as much of an answer as the club are willing to give. I sincerely doubt you will ever get anymore than that if your question is as controversial as you would have us believe.

While I think the "Boardroom Banter" is a good idea, I can't help but feel that the ICT folk look at it as being a bit of a burden, and the way they answer certain questions, is in at times patronising and the questions they ignore and dodge others, at times, gives you a better answer than any of their's would. If you look as well, there's also times when they seem to change the question to fit their answer. You can almost guess their answer as well. You don't get the impression, the club likes the fans at all.

I suspect that you are correct Renegade but would you not concede that at least it is something and like you say they answer only what they want to giving us the chance to construct our own inferences from their cherry picking of questions. Read between the lines as the great IHE would say.

We also have the chance to analyse the answers, and lack of answers, in the boardroom banter forum with the "Feedback and discussion" threads. Human nature dictates that the person answering the questions will be curious/vain enough to investigate what is being said about their answers. All sorts of accusations can be slung in those threads and, as I said before, if it stirs up enough of a discussion then the club may feel compelled to answer.

You are, however, willing to put CTO in that position? Ask the question in the Boardroom banter forum or in this one, you can be assured that it will be seen by the club. I would say that the announcement on the official site regarding the youth set up may well have been prompted by posts in this forum so you never know, if your question is provocative enough to stir up a reaction within the fan base it may result in a statement from within. Failing that read the supporters charter and send in an email to the club worded in such a way that they have to respond in order to stay within the rules then you will get as much of an answer as the club are willing to give. I sincerely doubt you will ever get anymore than that if your question is as controversial as you would have us believe.

Not putting CTO in any position at all, everyone is responsible for their own posts are they not?

I'm already familiar with emailing questions to the club, my last email was met with a snooty response from Mike Smith. The point is, my question shouldn't be controversial if the club have nothing to hide...

I get the feeling you're just arguing with me for the sake of it birdog.

Not at all and if you read my posts you will see that I am not arguing with you, I am having a discussion. If you feel that you are not puting CTO in any position then surely if you feel your question merits an answer the supporters trust are duty bound to ask the question, they were founded so that we, the fans, can have our voices and concerns answered by those running our club. You would not be putting them in any position that they should not be in.

I have no idea what your question is that you feel so strongly about, I am a fan of ICT, so if I were to argue against you asking the question I would be acting against my interests. My posts in this subject are about me telling it as I see it. I have also made suggestions as to how you would have your question answered and given reasons as to why I believe they would not be answered by the club via certain media. If you think I was arguing with you at all then I fear you may have to look up the definition of argue in your nearest dictionary.

fans are never going to be totally happy with the information they receive from the board, however the fans might be a bit happier if the board saw fit to put a member of the supporters trust on the ICT board.

fans are never going to be totally happy with the information they receive from the board, however the fans might be a bit happier if the board saw fit to put a member of the supporters trust on the ICT board.

Now there is a question for boardroom banter, get writing stevico.

fans are never going to be totally happy with the information they receive from the board, however the fans might be a bit happier if the board saw fit to put a member of the supporters trust on the ICT board.

Now there is a question for boardroom banter, get writing stevico.

I don't participate in BB I am afraid Mr Birddog

Then would you mind if I asked the question?

Then would you mind if I asked the question?

No probs Birdog

I already am a member of the Supporters Trust. To be honest I wouldn't want to put the Trust into that sort of position - If they were to ask those sorts of questions on my behalf, any discussions would be likely to become very heated indeed.

As a member of the Trust Board I can assure you that we would have no issue whatsoever raising a point on behalf of any fan where it was felt necessary, or where they were having issues getting answers by any other means. The most important word in our name is "Supporters" and that is who we are ultimately charged with representing.

That's not to say we'll get involved in any and every question/issue an individual fan might have and people have to accept that sometimes "interesting" does not equate to "best interests".

With regards the Boardroom Banter, my own personal opinion is that the club could be a little more open and forthcoming in some areas and they could also stretch beyond simply answering questions by giving us information on things of interest that might not have raised any questions at that time.

IMO, The biggest "negative" of our 5 seasons in the SPL has been this divide that's grown between the club and the fans. For whatever reason the club have formed a mindset that they will tell us as little as possible and the fans have reacted to that by ripping to shreds what little information we do get. If we want to get back to the more free flowing information we say in the previous run of BB then moves are needed on both sides of the fence. Not suggesting we accept everything we're fed (or not fed) without question or comment, but I do think a good few people need to realise that a constructive comment will get them a lot further than an abusive one. Likewise, the club need to realise that if they don't tell us anything, or what they tell us is shown to be little more than "spin" then fans are going to jump on it.

I perhaps have a unique viewpoint on this as I was one of two people responsible for creating the first Boardroom Banter series of articles and heavily involved with a few more folks in resurrecting them for series 2 !!

At the time of series 1, the club embraced the fans and wanted to get information out to them. This was largely down to people like Kenny Cameron, Ken Thompson and even David Sutherland putting some effort into it and also to me in regularly writing articles that the club did not see as controversial. At the end of the day, we were a lower division club, with a smaller fanbase, and we were not in the SPL goldfish bowl so questions could be asked and answered in a fairly open manner. We were also the official site when these articles were happening so they were tantamount to official releases from the club (that nobody except the fans was interested in).

I can pinpoint the exact moment that series 1 of BB came to an end. It was when Kenny Cameron left the board. Liaison with the fans (via the website) which had been undertaken first by Ken Thompson and then by Kenny Cameron over the course of the previous 4 or 5 years was turned over to Nigel <whatsisname> (Inverness Medical) and that was the last we ever got in terms of liason with the board until Kenny/Grassa agreed to try it out again this past season and although the answers have been less open, I still commend them for at least trying.

A lot has changed over the ensuing time period. There have been significant changes in the administration of the club some good, some not so good. We are definitely more professional in many areas but numerous positions that were once occupied by volunteers are (were?) now paid positions and volunteers were more and more excluded or looked at suspiciously, partly because certain people didnt like the access it gave them, and partly because the club had to step it up a notch for the SPL. In my opinion, this eroded a lot of the goodwill away from the club as it moved more and more towards being a corporate entity that seemed to view fans as a necessary evil than a community based club where people were approachable. I guess that is progress for you though.

The SPL was also a big factor in the club having to be very careful about what it said both publicly and through any other means such as their website. I wont go into the long drawn story about how we went from being the official site back to being unofficial (I'll save that for the book ) but SPL rules meant the club could potentially be held accountable for comments made by fans on message boards attached to an official site. The long and the short of it was basically that the club and myself had to make a decision whether the site would lose the forum, or lose the official status and as you are reading this forum you know what the decision was .....

As an official forum we definitely cracked down on wayward comments far more than we do now. I was mindful of trying to walk a tightrope between fans and club and at times pleasing none of them. Some at the club would say that we allowed chaos and anarchy, some of the fans would call us the club's own little pravda ... you couldnt win. When we became unofficial we didnt change much except the latitude of certain rules and this has meant that when you take everything together .... the relaxed rules, the perception that the club dont care, the goldfish bowl effect of the SPL, the increased expectation of fans, and any manner of other factors, the forum has become a far more critical and skeptical place than it was 5 years ago.

So with the re-introduction of BB, Grassa and Kenny are approaching a more "hostile" environment than they once contributed too, they have to keep one eye on SPL communication/comment rules, and with the increased "professionalism" at the club, they also have to deal with a lot more internal politics and bureaucracy about who can say what and when. Its no wonder the articles/answers are a lot more "generic" and a lot less effusive.

My philosophy on this is "slowly slowly catchee monkey". We did once have a great and trusting relationship between board/fans/website. For varying reasons (depending on your own personal viewpoint) this has eroded over the last 5 years. It will take time for that to be rebuilt and time for the "banter" to be as off the cuff as it once was. The club used to answer some questions in a jovial manner but this is unlikely to happen any more as it would likely be twisted - by fans or media - into something it is not. Lazy journalism and the continued emergence of the Internet has seen to it that comments made in jest can often be turned back on you. We will keep trying with BB until such time as the club or you guys decide it is not worth it. I will always believe it is !

Fair observations Scotty, It occurs to me that there is indeed a bit of a thorny fence between the board and the fans which probably went further downhill after the trust meeting/ protests against Brewster.

DFS did not do the board any favours with his comments about DJS and the fans, and i'd agree that the relationship is strained at the moment and bringing it 'back' will need a fair bit of work.

I find it a wee bit sad that there is a barrier between the sections as in the current climate we need to be working together a bit more.

Scotty, when this medium was used to get Brew out, I stated that things on here can never be the same again.

We are experiencing it now with the 'Our Tel' thread - "I'll give him xx games and then....." - and then what? The forum will be full of the same small amount of people, saying the same thing, in a different manner, to up the pressure on the manager and players and Board.

A few activists can create the illusion of mega discontent.

Can you therefore blame our Board (Muppets, to some) for being less than forthcoming on here considering the depth and amount of criticism, much of it being very personal, that they have been subjected to? Lets treat them with contempt and then ask them to speak to us in a civil manner. Aye, Right!!

A lot of the postings have driven a wedge between the Board and the fans and we, the vast majority of ICT followers, are now suffering for it.

.

Scotty, when this medium was used to get Brew out, I stated that things on here can never be the same again.

We are experiencing it now with the 'Our Tel' thread - "I'll give him xx games and then....." - and then what? The forum will be full of the same small amount of people, saying the same thing, in a different manner, to up the pressure on the manager and players and Board.

A few activists can create the illusion of mega discontent.

Can you therefore blame our Board (Muppets, to some) for being less than forthcoming on here considering the depth and amount of criticism, much of it being very personal, that they have been subjected to? Lets treat them with contempt and then ask them to speak to us in a civil manner. Aye, Right!!

A lot of the postings have driven a wedge between the Board and the fans and we, the vast majority of ICT followers, are now suffering for it.

.

:clapping03: :clapping03: :clapping03: :clapping03: :clapping03:

Completely spot on Absent Freind. This club has sufered hugely from a small self satisfied minoraty of people on here, and everybody knows who they are, who seem to think they can run the team better than whatever manager is in post and run the club better than the board. Gets you wondering who the REAL Muppetts around this club are. :33:

aye you are right ... maybe should just throw the towel in ......

Don't think throwing in the towel is the answer BUT it could perhaps explain why the Banter from the Board is less than it was.

Do you think the forum 'craic' was as personal and critical as it now is ,Scotty, in the past, when we enjoyed a better feeling of togetherness?

I just get disappointed that posters feel they are a non-return valve, they can be offensive but do not expect the offended to react. We are all human, with emotions and that goes for the Board members too.

.

Don't think throwing in the towel is the answer BUT it could perhaps explain why the Banter from the Board is less than it was.

Do you think the forum 'craic' was as personal and critical as it now is ,Scotty, in the past, when we enjoyed a better feeling of togetherness?

I just get disappointed that posters feel they are a non-return valve, they can be offensive but do not expect the offended to react. We are all human, with emotions and that goes for the Board members too.

.

Come on. We have to blindly follow to get a few vaguely answered questions a month? If people from the club take what is said on here seriously, surely they can see it's only a few people, with time on their hands, passing rash comments about the tiniest little things. Do you think the players come on and look at how IHE has rated them after every game? If they do, they shouldn't, unless they like a laugh. Do the board come on here to gauge fan reaction? They shouldn't, most people I know at games don't go on here, and never boo the team they clap, cheer and sigh. You can gauge the reaction in the stands.

Boardroom banter is defo a good thing. Don't believe that we have anything to do with the answers though. Like was said in a previous post, an SPL club has to watch what they say becasue of the 24 hour nature of the media. Not enough news so they make things news that really aren't. I would prefer a Butcher banter but, I can't see that happening! "Terry, Why has Esson been dropped?" "He's a cheeky wee know all". Can't see it though. Keep the boardroom banter coming. It makes an interesting read. Are you allowed to post up what questions have been avoided? That would provide a few answers as well.....

Edited June 9, 200916 yr by TheKnowledge

If people from the club take what is said on here seriously, surely they can see it's only a few people, with time on their hands, passing rash comments about the tiniest little things. Do you think the players come on and look at how IHE has rated them after every game? If they do, they shouldn't, unless they like a laugh. Do the board come on here to gauge fan reaction? They shouldn't, most people I know at games don't go on here, and never boo the team they clap, cheer and sigh. You can gauge the reaction in the stands.

It's an interesting point this. Look at Newcastle. "We don't like Allardyce" say the fans. "We want Keegan" say the fans. "We want Shearer" say the fans. I'm sure the vast majority of Newcastle fans didn't want any of these things, but it's the vocal minority whose opinions are always heard. So what do the decision makers then think? It's a tiny minority of nutters, or are these people the vocal tip of a similarly thinking iceberg? Hopefully they do realise it's (normally) the former.

Don't think throwing in the towel is the answer BUT it could perhaps explain why the Banter from the Board is less than it was. Do you think the forum 'craic' was as personal and critical as it now is ,Scotty, in the past, when we enjoyed a better feeling of togetherness? I just get disappointed that posters feel they are a non-return valve, they can be offensive but do not expect the offended to react. We are all human, with emotions and that goes for the Board members too.

re-read my (long) post above - I think I made my opinions clear in there. In the first series of articles the board were pro-active and wanted to do this, in the second set of articles one or two of them, realising the ever deepening gulf between boardroom and fans felt they needed to do it in an effort to stem that tide. A lot of trust has been lost along the way, not necessarily trust in me personally or in Don or others who help run this site, but the site in general. When you add the increased interest in Internet comments from the media now as opposed to 5 years ago and the goldfish bowl effect of being in the SPL as well as "media rules" about what a club official can and cannot say then it all adds up to a somewhat more sterile experience.

Come on. We have to blindly follow to get a few vaguely answered questions a month? If people from the club take what is said on here seriously, surely they can see it's only a few people, with time on their hands, passing rash comments about the tiniest little things. Do you think the players come on and look at how IHE has rated them after every game? If they do, they shouldn't, unless they like a laugh. Do the board come on here to gauge fan reaction? They shouldn't, most people I know at games don't go on here, and never boo the team they clap, cheer and sigh. You can gauge the reaction in the stands.

Boardroom banter is defo a good thing. Don't believe that we have anything to do with the answers though. Like was said in a previous post, an SPL club has to watch what they say becasue of the 24 hour nature of the media. Not enough news so they make things news that really aren't. I would prefer a Butcher banter but, I can't see that happening! "Terry, Why has Esson been dropped?" "He's a cheeky wee know all". Can't see it though. Keep the boardroom banter coming. It makes an interesting read. Are you allowed to post up what questions have been avoided? That would provide a few answers as well.....

Again, I refer to my answer above. I know things are avoided ... thats just the nature of the beast. I dont delete much from the BB question threads each month so what is not answered is there for all to see and indeed, in the first few articles I submitted everything including those I knew would not be answered and the club answered to the effect that "we cannot/will-not answer that question". In the club's defence, I have to say that it was made quite clear to myself and Don when we sat down with Kenny and Grassa on my last trip home and entered into a committment that we would all try to work to make it a success that there were areas that were "off-limits". These were not new areas, they were the same areas that were defined for the first set of articles. Confidential business information, personnel issues, contracts, wages and stuff like that. Maybe it is more noticeable in the current set of articles as people have an increased sense of entitlement in thinking they have a right to know that information.

As for people reacting to comments ... its only natural. I have a fairly thick skin after doing this for 15 years but there are sometimes personal comments that have me raging. I usually go away for a couple of hours and calm down as opposed to posting in haste - although its not unknown for the odd rant to slip through :) !!! People at the club are no different. If every aspect of your working life is called into question, or your ability to do your job is questioned then you are not going to look favourably on the medium that allows that. The difference to my mind is that its not the site thats the villain, its the individual poster(s) that people should be looking at. We only provide the medium for supporters to have their say or to have a rant and we do try to stick to a set of rules that have evolved over 15 years to try and protect things from going too far and to allow both sides of the argument to emerge.

This is an extremely difficult balancing act and there are times you just cannot win. We get plenty of compliments from certain people (with experience of other clubs and their forums) who think this site is one of the best run football forums on the net, but we also get comments from the "old school" who loathe and despise anything related to so-called "new media" ... many of them havent even viewed it yet they crucify its very existence. On the fan side, we are - to some - very balanced, yet to others we are the Nazis who will stop at nothing to crush opinion or thwart free speech.

At the end of the day, we are here, whether (some) people like it or not, and we will continue to apply (and modify if necessary) our site values and rules that have evolved over the years. We will continue to take every opportunity to work with the club when they choose to work alongside us and will offer any assistance we can (an offer that has always been on the table) but we will also continue to give fans a platform to discuss all that is good, bad or indifferent about ICT.

For those who think this site is the "big bad wolf", all I would say to you is go and have a look round the Internet at some of the other football forums .... not just in Scotland, but all over. Have a look at Pie and Bovril, have a look at BigSoccer, have a look at some of the Toronto ones (red patch boys, usector etc) ... On may of those sites you may be aghast at how lax their forum rules are and you will see that we do try to keep things within the realms of civility.

It's an interesting point this. Look at Newcastle. "We don't like Allardyce" say the fans. "We want Keegan" say the fans. "We want Shearer" say the fans. I'm sure the vast majority of Newcastle fans didn't want any of these things, but it's the vocal minority whose opinions are always heard. So what do the decision makers then think? It's a tiny minority of nutters, or are these people the vocal tip of a similarly thinking iceberg? Hopefully they do realise it's (normally) the former.

The users of football forums tend to be the diehards with strong opinions.

We actually prune our membership on here to "active" members. Basically, it means that if you havent logged in in 6 months you are deleted, if you havent logged in in 3 months you are classed as inactive and not counted in our total of "active members". Because of this, I can accurately say that we tend to have around 1500 active members at any one time.

Of that 1500 - which is a good bit less than half of our diehard support - quite a few are opposition fans, quite a few might be players, officials or journalists, and quite a few are "lurkers" who regularly read the comments but do not post. I would estimate the number of people who actually post at somewhere in the few hundred mark and most of us (myself included) are quite opinionated. I have always maintained that the membership here is not representative of our entire fanbase, but it is representative of a cross section of it ... in just the same way that the members of the Trust are, or the members of the Supporters club, or the regular Hospitality customers are.

In some ways - and its kind of hard and maybe disloyal to say this - but part of me hopes that ICT take more than a year to get back up to the SPL. The SPL has been quite toxic in certain respects and a stint back in division 1 may make us realise that we all need to work together to achieve the results we all want. Perhaps a time out of the limelight will allow wounds to heal, will allow the club to return to their previous fan-focused outlook, and will allow fans to wind in that sense of entitlement, expectation or indignation that has grown over the last 5 years.