Only Munro signed didn't he?

So that leaves Black, Fraser, and Cowie still to sign.

This looks worringly like the Dargo situation, week after week there was no news, then he signed elsewhere. I've no idea what process contract talks go through, but find it worrying when there's no news about contracts that were offered a while ago now.

With all the rumours about Cowie I think it's almost certain we're going to lose him very soon, but it's Blackie I'm more concerned about. If we were to lose him as well....

The club were quick enough to go to press saying that Cowie had been offered a contract earlier in the season. In fact, it's been fairly normal practice for the club to go public when players are offered contracts (most recently, Munro, Duncan, Cowie, Tokely are all ones that were in the press before deals had been finalised as far as memory serves).....so, why didn't they also tell us that other players were also offered contracts at the time? That, and the fact that Brewster was extremely reluctant to partake in any discussion on the matter, leaves me wondering just who is being "misleading"

It becomes increasingly difficult and frustrating to sort out what is truth and what is (poor) spin when it comes to ICT given their persistence to only release news/information on a reactionary basis.

For what it's worth the players do not appear as assets on the balance sheet.

Not strictly true.....just getting ready to head out so don't have time to elaborate, but I will when I get back if nobody else has.

Seems to be an all too familiar scenario developing here

The scenario being certain fans blaming the club for everything.

Like, ICT management know nothing...............yeah, right.

That's what he started as.

Well that's what he should be getting now.

Yes that's mature. :thumb04:

Care to argue your point in adult manner?

That's what he started as.

Well that's what he should be getting now.

Yes that's mature. :018:

Care to argue your point in adult manner?

Grassa doesn't need to be at ICT, he is there as a football fan trying to do his best for his local SPL team. When he started in the DOF position it was widely discussed on here that he was not drawing a wage, I had my doubts and still do but reasonable expenses are not outwith the range of the clubs finances and I expect that is what he is on now. ICT do not need a full time DOF and we don't have one. To suggest that his expenses would cover any increase in wage to retain players is not only erroneous but complete folly. Who's wage would it be next season? Mike Smith? And the next? Where would it stop?

That adult enough for you?

:thumb04:

Perhaps if you would care to look at bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland or follow the link to it from the appropriate section of this site, you might get an insight into what has been happening.

This is a summary of what Graeme Bennett told the BBC -

* At the beginning of the season ICT made extension offers to Grant Munro, Ian Black, Don Cowie and Michael Fraser.

*Don Cowie, on the advice of his agent, said he wanted to wait until the window.

*Ian Black and Michael Fraser, through their agents, turned their offers down.

* Grant Munro, who doesn't have an agent, agreed a 3 year extension back in October.

Perhaps if you would care to look at bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland or follow the link to it from the appropriate section of this site, you might get an insight into what has been happening.

This is a summary of what Graeme Bennett told the BBC -

* At the beginning of the season ICT made extension offers to Grant Munro, Ian Black, Don Cowie and Michael Fraser.

*Don Cowie, on the advice of his agent, said he wanted to wait until the window.

*Ian Black and Michael Fraser, through their agents, turned their offers down.

* Grant Munro, who doesn't have an agent, agreed a 3 year extension back in October.

Perhaps.

Where's the fun in that though?

There are a few people on here making assumptions about a lot of things. The DoF is at fault. Brewster is at fault. The board is at fault. Grassa gets a salary. Players not offered enough. etc. etc.

I dont wish to seem to defend the club on this because I dont know any of the facts. Only press stories and suppositions. I dont know what those players have been offered nor do I know if Grassa gets a salary. The one thing I do know is the players turned down the chance to negotiate new contracts. The question I would like answered is why?

It may well be that none of them want to stay at the club. It may be money. It may be length of contract. In the case of Mike it may be the security of the number 1 jersey. It may be a million and one other reasons. I reserve judgement on those concerned until I know the facts.

Some of the fans of this club demand too much at times. No other club publicises its business until it has something concrete to tell the world. Why should this one be any different. Few on here are even trying to persuade the players they should stay and play for this club. The arguement is more about increasing their value to let them go. None of the three actually cost us so even if they go on a free we aren't losing out.

Those players are seen as being key to the future of the club but if they dont want to stay, or if they think they can do better elsewhere, then no amount of persuasion or fan pressure is going to make them sign extensions I want them all to stay and play football for this club but if they go then so be it. Others will come along and take their place. We thought we'd die when Bobby Mann left. We thought we'd die when Dods left. When Wyness and Dargo left. Rankin. Sheerin. And others. We're still competing.

There are a few people on here making assumptions about a lot of things. The DoF is at fault. Brewster is at fault. The board is at fault. Grassa gets a salary. Players not offered enough. etc. etc.

I dont wish to seem to defend the club on this because I dont know any of the facts. Only press stories and suppositions. I dont know what those players have been offered nor do I know if Grassa gets a salary. - The Accounts show a emolument for the DoF in the region of ?50k, so I would say we do know that he get's a salary.

The one thing I do know is the players turned down the chance to negotiate new contracts. The question I would like answered is why? - How do you know this? We have a player saying he has not been approached and a counter story from the club which says he has. All we know for certain is that we have two conflicting stories.

It may well be that none of them want to stay at the club. It may be money. It may be length of contract. In the case of Mike it may be the security of the number 1 jersey. It may be a million and one other reasons. I reserve judgement on those concerned until I know the facts.

Some of the fans of this club demand too much at times. No other club publicises its business until it has something concrete to tell the world. Why should this one be any different. Few on here are even trying to persuade the players they should stay and play for this club. The arguement is more about increasing their value to let them go. None of the three actually cost us so even if they go on a free we aren't losing out. - Player development/training, salaries, expenses etc....that's a long way from costing us nothing.

Those players are seen as being key to the future of the club but if they dont want to stay, or if they think they can do better elsewhere, then no amount of persuasion or fan pressure is going to make them sign extensions I want them all to stay and play football for this club but if they go then so be it. Others will come along and take their place. We thought we'd die when Bobby Mann left. We thought we'd die when Dods left. When Wyness and Dargo left. Rankin. Sheerin. And others. We're still competing. - Barely.

I appreciate where your coming from Alex....but your making a few assumptions of your own in the above.

Spot on Alex.

Perhaps if you would care to look at bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotland or follow the link to it from the appropriate section of this site, you might get an insight into what has been happening.

This is a summary of what Graeme Bennett told the BBC -

* At the beginning of the season ICT made extension offers to Grant Munro, Ian Black, Don Cowie and Michael Fraser.

*Don Cowie, on the advice of his agent, said he wanted to wait until the window.

*Ian Black and Michael Fraser, through their agents, turned their offers down.

* Grant Munro, who doesn't have an agent, agreed a 3 year extension back in October.

Very insightful Charles. What ever happened to the concept of impartial reporting?

There are a few people on here making assumptions about a lot of things. The DoF is at fault. Brewster is at fault. The board is at fault. Grassa gets a salary. Players not offered enough. etc. etc.

I dont wish to seem to defend the club on this because I dont know any of the facts. Only press stories and suppositions. I dont know what those players have been offered nor do I know if Grassa gets a salary. The one thing I do know is the players turned down the chance to negotiate new contracts. The question I would like answered is why?

It may well be that none of them want to stay at the club. It may be money. It may be length of contract. In the case of Mike it may be the security of the number 1 jersey. It may be a million and one other reasons. I reserve judgement on those concerned until I know the facts.

Some of the fans of this club demand too much at times. No other club publicises its business until it has something concrete to tell the world. Why should this one be any different. Few on here are even trying to persuade the players they should stay and play for this club. The arguement is more about increasing their value to let them go. None of the three actually cost us so even if they go on a free we aren't losing out.

Those players are seen as being key to the future of the club but if they dont want to stay, or if they think they can do better elsewhere, then no amount of persuasion or fan pressure is going to make them sign extensions I want them all to stay and play football for this club but if they go then so be it. Others will come along and take their place. We thought we'd die when Bobby Mann left. We thought we'd die when Dods left. When Wyness and Dargo left. Rankin. Sheerin. And others. We're still competing.

Alex the players did cost us nothing but have developed into something worse considerably more than nothing now. Do you honestly think that if 2 off our biggest assets leave for nothing we are not losing out?

There are a few people on here making assumptions about a lot of things. The DoF is at fault. Brewster is at fault. The board is at fault. Grassa gets a salary. Players not offered enough. etc. etc.

I dont wish to seem to defend the club on this because I dont know any of the facts. Only press stories and suppositions. I dont know what those players have been offered nor do I know if Grassa gets a salary. - The Accounts show a emolument for the DoF in the region of ?50k, so I would say we do know that he get's a salary.

They show an emolument not a salary.

The one thing I do know is the players turned down the chance to negotiate new contracts. The question I would like answered is why? - How do you know this? We have a player saying he has not been approached and a counter story from the club which says he has. All we know for certain is that we have two conflicting stories.

Charlie Bannerman said so

It may well be that none of them want to stay at the club. It may be money. It may be length of contract. In the case of Mike it may be the security of the number 1 jersey. It may be a million and one other reasons. I reserve judgement on those concerned until I know the facts.

Some of the fans of this club demand too much at times. No other club publicises its business until it has something concrete to tell the world. Why should this one be any different. Few on here are even trying to persuade the players they should stay and play for this club. The arguement is more about increasing their value to let them go. None of the three actually cost us so even if they go on a free we aren't losing out. - Player development/training, salaries, expenses etc....that's a long way from costing us nothing.

They also helped make money for the club which was probably more than we shelled out

Those players are seen as being key to the future of the club but if they dont want to stay, or if they think they can do better elsewhere, then no amount of persuasion or fan pressure is going to make them sign extensions I want them all to stay and play football for this club but if they go then so be it. Others will come along and take their place. We thought we'd die when Bobby Mann left. We thought we'd die when Dods left. When Wyness and Dargo left. Rankin. Sheerin. And others. We're still competing. - Barely.

We're three points of a top six place. We're still in the league

I appreciate where your coming from Alex....but your making a few assumptions of your own in the above.

Edited December 4, 200817 yr by Alex MacLeod

Alex,

1. I've already explained twice in the past when you've used the "it's an emolument not a salary" argument that they amount to the same thing. Surely I don't need to do so a third time?

2. You are correct, Charles Bannerman has as good as called Ian Black a liar for saying that he had not (at the time) been approached by the club. Quite a bold, if not somewhat compromising, position for him to have placed himself in. Other journalist might have just reported on the content of the interview without making such sweeping conclusions.

3. Given the fact that most, if not all, clubs are largely subsidised by "non-footballing" income streams I don't think that any player (whether obtained for free or not) could be said to have turned a profit where little or no selling fee is received on their departure.

4. We're also only 5 points from the bottom of the table...so as I said, just!!!

Alex,

1. I've already explained twice in the past when you've used the "it's an emolument not a salary" argument that they amount to the same thing. Surely I don't need to do so a third time?

2. You are correct, Charles Bannerman has as good as called Ian Black a liar for saying that he had not (at the time) been approached by the club. Quite a bold, if not somewhat compromising, position for him to have placed himself in. Other journalist might have just reported on the content of the interview without making such sweeping conclusions.

3. Given the fact that most, if not all, clubs are largely subsidised by "non-footballing" income streams I don't think that any player (whether obtained for free or not) could be said to have turned a profit where little or no selling fee is received on their departure.

4. We're also only 5 points from the bottom of the table...so as I said, just!!! ;)

By definition "emolument" implies Grassa has to work damn hard for it, could it possibly be travelling expenses and accomodation while on company business? I don't know. Very few know and why should we! :018:

Someone is lying, ask yourself who will still be here in a couple of seasons and is more likely to lose face if they lied. :thumb04:

What non-footballing income streams do we have? A car boot sale?

Glass half empty here too.

Here it is again for those who may have missed it the last twice this subject came up for discussion.

SCHEDULE 4 Disclosure of Information: Emoluments and Other Benefits of Directors and Others

1 Schedule 6 to the [1985 c. 6.] Companies Act 1985 is amended as follows.

2 For the heading substitute?

"Disclosure of information: emoluments and other benefits of directors and others".

3 Insert the following provisions (which reproduce, with amendments, the former Part V of Schedule 5 to that Act) as Part I?

"Part I Chairman's and Directors' Emoluments, Pensions and Compensation for Loss of Office

Aggregate amount of directors' emoluments

1 (1) The aggregate amount of directors' emoluments shall be shown.

(2) This means the emoluments paid to or receivable by any person in respect of?

(a) his services as a director of the company, or

( b his services while director of the company?

(i) as director of any of its subsidiary undertakings, or

(ii) otherwise in connection with the management of the affairs of the company or any of its subsidiary undertakings.

(3) There shall also be shown, separately, the aggregate amount within sub-paragraph (2)(a) and ( b(i) and the aggregate amount within sub-paragraph (2)( b(ii).

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph the "emoluments" of a person include?

(a) fees and percentages,

( b sums paid by way of expenses allowance (so far as those sums are chargeable to United Kingdom income tax),

©contributions paid in respect of him under any pension scheme, and

(d) the estimated money value of any other benefits received by him otherwise than in cash,

and emoluments in respect of a person's accepting office as director shall be treated as emoluments in respect of his services as director.

Details of chairman's and directors' emoluments

2 Where the company is a parent company or a subsidiary undertaking, or where the amount shown in compliance with paragraph 1(1) is ?60,000 or more, the information required by paragraphs 3 to 6 shall be given with respect to the emoluments of the chairman and directors, and emoluments waived.

3 (1) The emoluments of the chairman shall be shown.

(2) The "chairman" means the person elected by the directors to be chairman of their meetings, and includes a person who, though not so elected, holds an office (however designated) which in accordance with the company's constitution carries with it functions substantially similar to those discharged by a person so elected.

(3) Where there has been more than one chairman during the year, the emoluments of each shall be stated so far as attributable to the period during which he was chairman.

(4) The emoluments of a person need not be shown if his duties as chairman were wholly or mainly discharged outside the United Kingdom.

4 (1) The following information shall be given with respect to the emoluments of directors.

(2) There shall be shown the number of directors whose emoluments fell within each of the following bands?

*

not more than ?5,000,

*

more than ?5,000 but not more than ?10,000,

*

more than ?10,000 but not more than ?15,000,

*

and so on.

(3) If the emoluments of any of the directors exceeded that of the chairman, there shall be shown the greatest amount of emoluments of any director.

(4) Where more than one person has been chairman during the year, the reference in sub-paragraph (3) to the emoluments of the chairman is to the aggregate of the emoluments of each person who has been chairman, so far as attributable to the period during which he was chairman.

(5) The information required by sub-paragraph (2) need not be given in respect of a director who discharged his duties as such wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom; and any such director shall be left out of account for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3).

5 In paragraphs 3 and 4 "emoluments" has the same meaning as in paragraph 1, except that it does not include contributions paid in respect of a person under a pension scheme.

Emoluments waived

6 (1) There shall be shown?

(a) the number of directors who have waived rights to receive emoluments which, but for the waiver, would have fallen to be included in the amount shown under paragraph 1(1), and

( b the aggregate amount of those emoluments.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph it shall be assumed that a sum not receivable in respect of a period would have been paid at the time at which it was due, and if such a sum was payable only on demand, it shall be deemed to have been due at the time of the waiver.

For the record I'm not (at this time) making any comment on whether or not the amount received by the DoF is too much, too little or just enough. I'm merely trying to clear up the misconception as to whether or not he receives a salary (payment for work he does).

For the record I'm not (at this time) making any comment on whether or not the amount received by the DoF is too much, too little or just enough. I'm merely trying to clear up the misconception as to whether or not he receives a salary (payment for work he does).

Cheers D that's as clear as mud. Anyway, it's not a salary it's an emolument (reimbursement of expenses).

Note that expenses are included in that, ie travel, meals, entertainment etc., when courting (for want of a better word) prospective talents and/or their agents. Doesn't seem excessive in that context to me anyway.

Reported on 4 Oct 2008

Black said: "I'm a bit surprised the club haven't approached me yet on the subject of a new deal.

It's something I'm quite keen to sort out and I think talks may start during the international break."

On 4 Dec 2008

"There's a misconception that they have only just been offered contracts," said director of football Graeme Bennett.

"These four players were all offered contracts at the beginning of the season"

I wonder if beginning of the season means the international break? I know it's not the beginning but, well, it was a couple of months back. Bit strange nevertheless. Maybe Black meant negotiations haven't started after rejecting a first offer?

No doubt when Black's at Plymouth, Leeds or Hibs, it'll all come out. I just wonder which side it'll fall on?

Edited December 5, 200817 yr by starchief

Note that expenses are included in that, ie travel, meals, entertainment etc., when courting (for want of a better word) prospective talents and/or their agents. Doesn't seem excessive in that context to me anyway.

For the avoidance of any further doubt, the type of expenses you refer to here are NOT included in the directors emoluments reported in the accounts. Legitimate business expenses (eg travel, meals, hotel bills incurred in the course of club business) are excluded.

The text quoted above above refers to "expense allowances" of the type whereby a director is given a load of money to do whatever he wants with, with no accountability or receipts required, and is therefore indistinguishable from salary.

One thing I'm not so sure about: is it just an assumption by CaleyD that the director receiving emoluments is actually and solely Bennett?

Note that expenses are included in that, ie travel, meals, entertainment etc., when courting (for want of a better word) prospective talents and/or their agents. Doesn't seem excessive in that context to me anyway.

For the avoidance of any further doubt, the type of expenses you refer to here are NOT included in the directors emoluments reported in the accounts. Legitimate business expenses (eg travel, meals, hotel bills incurred in the course of club business) are excluded.

The text quoted above above refers to "expense allowances" of the type whereby a director is given a load of money to do whatever he wants with, with no accountability or receipts required, and is therefore indistinguishable from salary.

One thing I'm not so sure about: is it just an assumption by CaleyD that the director receiving emoluments is actually and solely Bennett?

I doubt very much if there's no accountability, we have a very shrewd board and they're not going to throw money away as is demonstrated in contract negotiations.

For the avoidance of any further doubt...

I'm merely trying to clear up the misconception......

So glad to be surrounded by some well informed supporters.

Note that expenses are included in that, ie travel, meals, entertainment etc., when courting (for want of a better word) prospective talents and/or their agents. Doesn't seem excessive in that context to me anyway.

For the avoidance of any further doubt, the type of expenses you refer to here are NOT included in the directors emoluments reported in the accounts. Legitimate business expenses (eg travel, meals, hotel bills incurred in the course of club business) are excluded.

The text quoted above above refers to "expense allowances" of the type whereby a director is given a load of money to do whatever he wants with, with no accountability or receipts required, and is therefore indistinguishable from salary.

One thing I'm not so sure about: is it just an assumption by CaleyD that the director receiving emoluments is actually and solely Bennett?

Exactly. Emoluments is just a fancy word for salary.

Also, as you say, unless the accounts are more specific than required, other than the chairman, individual directors' salaries are not disclosed, only the bands they are in on a no names basis.

I doubt very much if there's no accountability, we have a very shrewd board and they're not going to throw money away as is demonstrated in contract negotiations.

Agreed. What I was saying was that there are some companies out there who do give directors expense allowances with no accountability, and in those cases it is reported in the accounts in just the same way as salary.

2. You are correct, Charles Bannerman has as good as called Ian Black a liar

That statement is in effect defamatory. All I have done is to have quoted ICT's Director of Football and his account of the manner in which events unfolded.

Edited December 5, 200817 yr by Charles Bannerman

2. You are correct, Charles Bannerman has as good as called Ian Black a liar

That statement is in effect defamatory. All I have done is to have quoted ICT's Director of Football and his account of the manner in which events unfolded.

I think you got caught in the crossfire Charles.

Perhaps the recent quotes from Ian Black refer to the fact that the club have not returned to him with an improved offer, rather than not having offered him one at all.

Fair play to Charles for coming on here and stating Grassa's position clearly. This is after all a thread that has been operating on the basis of pure speculation for some time. All facts, impartial or otherwise, should surely be welcomed.