Being on Study Leave from school, me and a mate decided to go to the reserve match today. Great performance from the youngsters, especially Dale Gillespie who looked a real class act.

This was all overshadowed however, by the behaviour towards me by Mike Smith. Just before the match, me and my mate decided we wanted to sit in the North Stand, so started to walk towards the stand, when Mike Smith came out of the toilets between the main and north stands.. Mike took one look at me, and immediately shouted, "where do you think you're going?" I replied, "Is the North Stand available?" He told me "no of course not...I recognise you - sit down over here, shut up or you won't be coming back here this season." He didn't say this to me, he shouted it.

My disagreement with Mike over my Brewster Out banner is well publicised on here, but I am shocked and deeply troubled that a man with so much power at the club shows so much hostility towards the fans. My only words were, directly quoted, "Is the North Stand available?", and his response was to shout at me to shut up, and to threaten me with a ban from the stadium for the final game.

How did this man get to be in such a high position at the club? What does he actually do? What is his problem with the fans? My mate who attended the game with me today was a Hearts fan, and he joked to me that ICT was a joke the way it treated its fans. But he was 100% spot on.

:008:

.....and car park attendant, more commonly known as chief executive.

Only three people know exactly what was said and how it was said.  If as TCJ states is a true reflection of events then it has been handled poorly by Mr Smith and maybe the trust/supporters club should be involved to resolve this issue.  If on the other hand, Mr Smith has been made out to be the villain of the peace, be very careful how you go about this.

I am not in favour of the Brewster out flags either, but it is only an opinion and I believe the club were wrong to remove it.  I also think Brewster should be given a bit of leeway on this and next season will be his judgement day.

it has been handled poorly by Mr Smith

Unfortunatly we seem to be hearing that far too often of late

What does Smith look like anyway? Is he a fat bloke with scruffy hair? ***Personal Abuse Removed***. I say a few folk get him wound up at the st mirren game.

What does Smith look like anyway? Is he a fat bloke with scruffy hair? ***Personal ABuse Removed***. I say a few folk get him wound up at the st mirren game.

[/quote/]

Yes, quite 'large', scruffy white hair.

Tomcaleyjag - have you left school yet or do you also still irritate the **** out of your teacher's as well? Dont worry about it son you WILL grow out of it. But I just hope for everyones sake that this happens sooner rather than later!

PS - are you a fan of Harry Enfields "Kevin"?  :003:

Right...if this guy is the Cheif Executive then he has no right to censor the ICT fans. If we are not allowed to have an opinion about the clube we love then we have the right to stay away as well. So Mr Smith has confirmed that the club indeed do not care about the fans and their voice, only their money!!!

His job ( whatever that is) is surely to help run the club...I dont imagine Security is in his job spec

Mr Smith....Do your job and leave the fans alone

I have mentioned this else where before, but ICT needs to have a long hard look at what it's doing at the moment.

The new chairman is nothing more than a puppet of David Sutherland.

David Sutherland wants everything to do with the club run by him - yet does not want to be chairman  :017:

We need a DoF that has plentiful contacts throughout the leagues of the game and one that can attract decent quality players up north

Mike Smith needs to be relieved of his duties immediately - I have lost count of the number of times where his name is linked with poor treatment of fans on this site

Brewster and Malky need relieved of their duties ASAP.  I have no faith in Brewster, while it was nice to win by five goals, it was afterall against lowly Gretna.  His latest comments regarding our points total join his long list of f*ck ups, in short, he hasn't a clue what he's doing.  What's even worse, is he doesn't appear to learn from any mistakes he regularly makes.

We need changes and we need them now!  :008:

Actually BornCaley, our chief executive has overall responsibility for the day-to-day running of the stadium, including matchdays. He may have staff members to handle certain jobs or roles but ultimately - as far as I am aware - he is responsible for everything except team matters.

He takes a lot of stick on here, some of it is justified in my opinion, but a lot of it is not and it is to his credit that he is not firing off emails or phone calls in our direction most weeks after some of the things that get said about him.

Now that the official tag is gone from this site, I will openly criticise the club when I think they get things wrong but on the flipside, I will also say when I think they get it right. If he behaved as the initial poster said then this is not right and an apology is warranted but as with many things posted on here you sometimes wonder if you are getting the full story ......

As for banners - I have to side with the club on this one ..... The banner in question was "attached" to the stadium and as such it is the club's decision as to what is allowed to be attached in such a manner and what is not ....

He didnt confiscate it like some clubs would do - or like nasty stewards did at Hampden with the beachball we had for our first ever SF - he gave it back to the guy and told him he could wave it or do whatever he liked with it, he just could not attach it to ICT property because of the message it contained. The fact that it is hard to wave a banner about without the use of a pole and said pole is a restricted item (nationally) is neither here nor there.

Think of it another way .... We are happy for people to come on here and express their different opinions but when those opinions break our rules or when people come on here and "attach" abusive messages to the forum about one of us we also do exactly what he did and tell them they cannot attach it to our property (the forums), we pretty much confiscate it (by moving or removing the post) and we dont give it back ...

Scotty - I hope you don't mind, that I have unlocked this thread.  I would like people to have the opportunity to apologise.  :001:

I had a meeting with Mike today and there is a reason why 'Mike' spoke to Tom in a manner that surprised us. 

IT WAS NOT MIKE SMITH 

He wasn't even in the building at that time and when he did arrive he was in a meeting for most of the game.  He phoned me just after the game to set up today's meeting and I can verify the fact that he was definitely in a meeting and not out at the reserve game.

I think that he has confused Mike with someone else at the Stadium. 

Apologies will be accepted and Tom I think you might like to apologise directly for starting this thread when it was just a case of mistaken identity. 

I have to say that Mike has taken it in very good part and actually can see the funny side of it, he didn't even know he had a twin brother.  :rotflmao:

If this is the case then 100% absolutely unreserved whole-hearted apology!!!

I was sure it was Mike Smith, and even called whoever it was "mike", and he responded. He also said "i recognise you from saturday.  :024:

As I've said if this wasn't Smith, then Im extremely embarassed and can only offer sincere apologies, and thank Mike for taking it so well.

Anyone else called "Mike" work at the stadium that would recognise me??

No the other person wasn't called Mike.  Don't know if he would have recognised you or not though.  It really is very embarassing and everyone else who has posted in response to the way you were (not) treated is also in a bit of an embarassing situation.  Humble pie all round??

No the other person wasn't called Mike.  Don't know if he would have recognised you or not though.  It really is very embarassing and everyone else who has posted in response to the way you were (not) treated is also in a bit of an embarassing situation.  Humble pie all round??

I think I'll accept everyone's humble pie for this!!!  Someone did do all the things I've said though. If not Mike Smith then I have no idea who.

What was the outcome of the meeting regarding the banner?

I can honestly say my mind has not changed about him after this has emerged.  After his involvement in the fan shouting Golly's name fiasco, I have not been comfortable with his employment at the club.  As things stand, I still think he should be relieved of his duties.

I can honestly say my mind has not changed about him after this has emerged.  After his involvement in the fan shouting Golly's name fiasco, I have not been comfortable with his employment at the club.  As things stand, I still think he should be relieved of his duties.

Tell us about the fans shouting Golly's name fiasco Jay 7.

No the other person wasn't called Mike.  Don't know if he would have recognised you or not though.  It really is very embarassing and everyone else who has posted in response to the way you were (not) treated is also in a bit of an embarassing situation.  Humble pie all round??

I think I'll accept everyone's humble pie for this!!!  Someone did do all the things I've said though. If not Mike Smith then I have no idea who.

What was the outcome of the meeting regarding the banner?

Mike will e-mail you directly with his response

It was a while back now but was there not a fan that posts on here (or at least used to) thrown out for chanting Golly? - A chant quite clearly aimed at Golabek and not in any way racially motivated.

I can honestly say my mind has not changed about him after this has emerged.  After his involvement in the fan shouting Golly's name fiasco, I have not been comfortable with his employment at the club.  As things stand, I still think he should be relieved of his duties.

Tell us about the fans shouting Golly's name fiasco Jay 7.

No the other person wasn't called Mike.  Don't know if he would have recognised you or not though.  It really is very embarassing and everyone else who has posted in response to the way you were (not) treated is also in a bit of an embarassing situation.  Humble pie all round??

I think I'll accept everyone's humble pie for this!!!  Someone did do all the things I've said though. If not Mike Smith then I have no idea who.

What was the outcome of the meeting regarding the banner?

Mike will e-mail you directly with his response

Excellent, thanks for all your time and effort  :022:

It was a while back now but was there not a fan that posts on here (or at least used to) thrown out for chanting Golly? - A chant quite clearly aimed at Golabek and not in any way racially motivated.

There was an incident, but not as you say and nothing to do with Golly.  My point is that you are making reference to a situation when you can't even remember the facts.  It was about 2 years ago and the fan concerned has resolved his differences with Mike, so I see no reason to drag this up again.

Tomorrows Headline in the Daily Star......

"CLONING EXPERIMENTS UNEARTHED AT TULLOCH CALEDONIAN STADIUM"

Will the real Mike Smith please stand up  :015:

Notice this from the Brewster thread:

No need CaleyD, it was Mike Smith, I saw him taking it down and I went down and spoke to him. Missed Dougie's goal because of it too  :008: :004:

Interestingly, he told me "You're not allowed negative things on the stadium. You can take it up to Sect G and wave it about but don't tape it to the stadium." I don't see the difference really.

I cant tape the Marius one up though, as long as its not impeding anyone's view or covering advertising.

You say here that it was Mike Smith, yet now it turns out that the guy you met on Tuesday was a different guy.  Did the two different people look alike?  Or have you never actually met Mr Smith?

This whole fiasco is very bizarre.

Notice this from the Brewster thread:

No need CaleyD, it was Mike Smith, I saw him taking it down and I went down and spoke to him. Missed Dougie's goal because of it too  :008: :004:

Interestingly, he told me "You're not allowed negative things on the stadium. You can take it up to Sect G and wave it about but don't tape it to the stadium." I don't see the difference really.

I cant tape the Marius one up though, as long as its not impeding anyone's view or covering advertising.

You say here that it was Mike Smith, yet now it turns out that the guy you met on Tuesday was a different guy.  Did the two different people look alike?  Or have you never actually met Mr Smith?

This whole fiasco is very bizarre.

Although I've only met Mike a couple of times I was 100% sure it was him on Tuesday, although its now been revealed that wasn't the case...

Im pretty sure it was Mike on Saturday though, as who else would have had the authority to remove the banner? Plus L_G had a meeting with Mike today regarding the banner and he knew what she was talking about. But then again, I had a brief discussion with the mystery man on Tuesday regarding the banner and he knew exactly what I was talking about as well  :024:

Very bizarre indeed.

And TCF, why are you so determined that Barry gets a contact?  :016:

Notice this from the Brewster thread:

No need CaleyD, it was Mike Smith, I saw him taking it down and I went down and spoke to him. Missed Dougie's goal because of it too  :008: :004:

Interestingly, he told me "You're not allowed negative things on the stadium. You can take it up to Sect G and wave it about but don't tape it to the stadium." I don't see the difference really.

I cant tape the Marius one up though, as long as its not impeding anyone's view or covering advertising.

You say here that it was Mike Smith, yet now it turns out that the guy you met on Tuesday was a different guy.  Did the two different people look alike?  Or have you never actually met Mr Smith?

This whole fiasco is very bizarre.

Although I've only met Mike a couple of times I was 100% sure it was him on Tuesday, although its now been revealed that wasn't the case...

Im pretty sure it was Mike on Saturday though, as who else would have had the authority to remove the banner? Plus L_G had a meeting with Mike today regarding the banner and he knew what she was talking about. But then again, I had a brief discussion with the mystery man on Tuesday regarding the banner and he knew exactly what I was talking about as well  :024:

Very bizarre indeed.

Maybe it really was Mike Smith and he's just telling porkies.

And TCF, why are you so determined that Barry gets a contact?  :016:

:029: :029: :029:

Notice this from the Brewster thread:

No need CaleyD, it was Mike Smith, I saw him taking it down and I went down and spoke to him. Missed Dougie's goal because of it too  :008: :004:

Interestingly, he told me "You're not allowed negative things on the stadium. You can take it up to Sect G and wave it about but don't tape it to the stadium." I don't see the difference really.

I cant tape the Marius one up though, as long as its not impeding anyone's view or covering advertising.

You say here that it was Mike Smith, yet now it turns out that the guy you met on Tuesday was a different guy.  Did the two different people look alike?  Or have you never actually met Mr Smith?

This whole fiasco is very bizarre.

Although I've only met Mike a couple of times I was 100% sure it was him on Tuesday, although its now been revealed that wasn't the case...

Im pretty sure it was Mike on Saturday though, as who else would have had the authority to remove the banner? Plus L_G had a meeting with Mike today regarding the banner and he knew what she was talking about. But then again, I had a brief discussion with the mystery man on Tuesday regarding the banner and he knew exactly what I was talking about as well  :024:

Very bizarre indeed.

Maybe it really was Mike Smith and he's just telling porkies.

Possibly, although I don;t want to throw that accusation at someone I don't really know, when I have absolutely no evidence, and also no reason to follow this up.

And TCF, why are you so determined that Barry gets a contact?  :016:

:029: :029: :029:

Maybe it really was Mike Smith and he's just telling porkies.

Possibly, although I don;t want to throw that accusation at someone I don't really know, when I have absolutely no evidence, and also no reason to follow this up.

No not possibly - definitely wasn't him.