Leaderboard

An interesting and very well attended evening with the Q&A session going on more than an hour after the advertised finish time. The new Chairman came across pretty well. He seems enthusiastic for the future of the club but is clear in the basic principle that we cannot spend more than is coming in. This year's budget is over £1 million down on last year so nobody is under any illusion of the scale of the task ahead. COO and the Manager spoke well and were pretty honest in their responses. The 3 of them all seemed to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Lots of assurances about better communication, improvements to the ground, club website, match day experience etc. Promise to hold similar meeting in future when they well report back on the progress made and also meetings where people will be invited to bring ideas which can be discussed. Of course, it is easy to say what the right things but it is not so easy to carry things through into actions. Sounds promising though. Very interesting comments from Robbo on various topics which are discussed in this forum. No doubt others will pick up on some of the detail in the relevant threads.

Fact is @forresjags we are a team in a transitional period on and off the park, we havent got a "core" of SPL players, we have pretty much got a new team, and any new team are going to take time to gel. I dont expect us to get promoted this season, i would love to be wrong on that, all these players coming in, with the exception of Baird, are younger guys who could possibly grow into a team to take us back up. Our Team Last Saturday below so 7 new players, 5 of whom have never played in this league before 28Ridgers - New 17Seedorf - New 5Warren 22McKay 16Calder- New 7Polworth 24Trafford- New 11VigursBooked at 30mins 4Chalmers - New 9Baird- New 14Oakley- New

There's no core left in our team. Tremarco hasn't played this season, you might as well mention Doran as well. Mulraney is an experienced player? One season with us where we got relegated.... As for polworth he has been on the fringes of our team for years and just isn't good enough. We have a new squad that needs time to gel. Please tell me how many teams that get relegated go back up the next season. I can only think of 2 or 3 in the last 20 years. Settling for mid table obscurity this season is ok with me, as long as the performances come and we look like we are getting somewhere. The top half of the Championship can easily compete with the bottom half of the premier. Something we couldn't even manage last season with a better squad.

This is a rebuilding exercise. Robbo mentioned the relegation hang over yesterday. He clearly wants to do a great job and I personally think we need to allow him time to do so. Far too early to draw any conclusions.

hhhmmm OFW- We cant punt the guy quick enough as far as Robbo is concerned Warren - yup give you that one Raven - See OFW Polworth -Never got past the "potential" tag he had a while ago Vigurs- Should be a good player in the League we are in Tremarco- Out till at Least November Mulraney - One season where we got relegated not sure exactly where your "core of an experienced SPL side is still there" is

No, how can you possibly think scraping a home draw is acceptable and settle for mid table obscurity. We have been forced into making changes but the core of an experienced SPL side is still there OFW , Warren , Raven , Polworth , Vigurs , Tremarco, Mulraney etc . These guys have all played at the highest level, so with some astute additions and good management we should be aiming a lot higher than mid table.

I think we need to give it time, there have been so many changes lately (including the Board, which is ongoing..) - the team haven't gelled yet, that's clear to see, but there is a will there. Early days. I just want to hear that the board have some concrete plans to move forward (& I don't just mean building a team on the park - the whole setup needs looking at).

Personally, I'd like to see Canmy MacKay get a run in the team (once he's fit - believe he's injured just now?). He did fine when he stood in for OFW at short notice for a game last season...Ridgers could do with the competition for the jersey...

Is he injured or is this just until he learns how to play?

It was a strange game. We looked pretty bright early on and were good value for our lead. There was a positive attitude and a willingness to take players on and shoot at goal. A goal should have settled a few nerves and given us a bit of confidence but it seemed to have the exact opposite effect. Perhaps a centre back scoring brought home to others in the team how inadequate they are in the goal scoring department. In many ways it was quite an entertaining game and the scoreline probably reflected the lack of quality in front of goal in both sides. Minus points. Raven didn't start. The lack of confidence throughout the team is palpable. Although he had another decent game, Vigurs was in a petulant mood: he fully deserved his booking and was lucky the referee didn't show the card earlier. Seedorf does not look like a right back - plenty of promise as an attacking midfielder though. Baird doesn't have the sharpness that once made him a reasonable striker: he looks unlikely to score half a dozen all season. After a reasonable start, the referee increasingly looked like he had money on a Morton win - some strange decisions. Plus points. Trafford looks like a proper player - if he can stay fit he could be a good replacement for Draper. Chalmers played significantly better than I have seen him before and showed some pretty good awareness on occasions; as he and the team settle, I think he could be pretty solid defensively. Bell looks way more lively than Baird - he looks as though he will harry defenders into making mistakes and he looks as though he has a sharper eye for goal - I'd like to see him start. Mulraney put in a couple of decent crosses and had a generally more mature performance when he came on. On a more general point, we had players finding space in the middle (as well as wider) and carrying the ball into the danger area much more than I can remember for a while. OK, we didn't do too much with the ball when we did get forward because there was either a lack of willingness to shoot, or there was a misunderstanding between the player with the ball and those running into space. But if we keep playing with that positive attitude, the goals will follow.

I'm sorry buy I just don't quite get your point. Almost all of what you're referring to is entirely retrospective since 38 of the games in question were in a different league under a different manager and different chairman, both departed, and a somewhat different board. 7 wins out of 38 last season - yes, we know.... we've been talking about it and analysing it for some time now. And then no wins in 3 games this season in a completely different set of circumstances, the boardroom side of which has only begun to indicate the will for radical change within the last six days. I don't think that merging these two different scenarios by use of two different tenses - "are" followed by "should have"- in the quoted statement is entirely appropriate. In the early stages of a new manager constructing a new team with a vastly reduced budget and six days after a definite statement of intent and change from within a new boardroom environment, it might be better to take the 38 as the well established past.... and the 3 as the start of a new phase which would be more accurately judged at a later date.

As others have said we had the better of the first half but regressed significantly during the second. Whilst we should probably have been more than one goal up at the break Morton could and probably should have scored more than one goal in the second half so a draw was probably fair over the course of the game. And whilst most of the team also began well they also faded badly as the game went on. The likes of Chalmers was much improved compared to last weekends disgraceful showing (he wasn't the only one of course) but in the second half he was making basic errors again and giving the ball away. Perhaps only Warren and Vigurs were mostly consistent over the piece. Mckay struggled in the first half as Quitongo exploited the space in behind Seedorf, playing further forward, and Mckay playing as the right CB. He (Quitongo) probably should have set up at least one Morton goal in the first half. Second half was largely dominated by the Ton. Our best chance was probably a header from Oakley that looked like he headed it backwards away from goal and into the box rather than into the net with the keeper flailing. Really bizarre looking header. Improved from Dunfermline, though that wouldn't be hard, but we still look really, really poor over the course of a full match. Still shaky at the back with Mckay and Chalmers not looking too great and we lack any real attacking edge up front. This is now the 3rd or 4th formation that Robbo has used and with players still trying to get to know each other this constant changing can't be making things easy for them. So many are on completely different wavelengths from one another it's going to take a long time for them to click. I don't get the fawning for Trafford. He broke up play well but his forward passing was very poor and seldom found his man although that could well be down to the previous point about players not really knowing where one another is on the pitch. Like so many others in the team you really hope there is more to come from them.

Everyone has such short memories we slated fisher on here for a long time until he got his streak. We need to give all our new players a chance. I think oakley has been great at linking and holding up play and defending from the front. Biggest issue with the front three yesterday was poor supply in the 18 yard box caused by v poor decision making. They all went to the same positions to did not commit to attack the ball. One notable example was when bell took ball down right and whipped a ball between back pedalling defenders and goalkeeper but polworth had stopped on penalty box waiting for a pass. The gel between the team is not there and the commitment to gamble on your teammate and attack space is not consistent yet.

Everyone is talking about Plan B. All very well but what the feck is Plan A

We were hoping for the proverbial 'reaction' today after last weekends debacle, and we certainly got one. The game should have been done and dusted at half time. On another day we would have gone in 5-0 up. All that was missing was the finishing touch. The second half was a scrappy, disjointed affair - not helped by the weather. In truth, I think a few of our new starts are still lacking first-team match fitness and dropped off a bit towards the end. Ability-wise our lads are head and shoulders above Morton. Trafford looks like one of our best signings for a while. A strong debut. Special mention to 'whipping boy' Chalmers, often the scapegoat this season - but one of our best players today.

Very good first 25 minutes when we created 7 or 8 good chances and on another day could have killed the game. Polworth and Vigurs the stand outs in that spell, with Polworth really up for his more advanced role. Would like to see the Vigurs penalty claim again, as he seemed convinced. The goal was deserved, as the foul on Calder must have just been outside the box. Then Morton came back into it and were the better team for most of the rest of the match. That said, Oakley missed a sitter which could have stolen it. Our crosses into the box were poor, or else we would have had a lot more chances. The wind made it tricky, with high balls towards the north stand being seriously held up in the wind, making kick outs a lottery at times. Ridgers on the whole OK, with a couple of saves, but distribution poor. Warren and Chalmers did well in back three, although Chalmers had a couple of hairy moments. Mckay seemed to struggle. Disappointed by Seedorf. I'd only seen him against Brechin, and he was not a patch on that today. Calder seemed uncertain of his role, and was being talked through the first half by Rice. A couple of positive runs, including the one which won the free kick which got the goal. Vigurs had a good game, but a needless booking for backchat. Early days for Trafford but he will hopefully settle in and be a good addition. Polworth started very well, but faded a bit when Morton came back into it. I thought Baird and Oakley combined quite well, especially in first half hour, but Oakley did miss that sitter. Bell lively when he came on and added pace in attack. Mulraney was his usual self, pace but poor use if the ball. Raven had a cameo after Seedorf sent off. I thought he was coming on at half time, which I thought would have been for Calder, but at didn't transpire. The ref had a stinker, with some poor decisions. Seems to be a pattern! The first thirty minutes was the best I've seen for a while, so we need to build on it to climb the table. Very big game at Brechin next week now.

Trafford looks decent addition and did well Oakley and bell aren't too bad but need to get goals. We played some nice direct positive football early on but couldnt capitalise. Return of Warren helped organise and shore up the defence, stepped up as a leader on the park. Goalkeeper looks a bomb scare, poor distribution and makes bad decisions about when to come off his line or stay on it, doesn't have a good command of his area at all. Polwarth looked poor, mainly anonymous as the game passed him by and didn't really get into it. Baird had a few chances and took plenty shots early on but non ever looked threatening - definitely think bell would create and offer more threat. Our crossing and set pieces were awful, so many high and inaccurate passes - even factoring the wind we need wide players who can get balls past the first man or not over hit them wildly like we saw. Overall better than I expected and some small signs to be positive about but plenty work to do in all areas.

Yes. We keep hearing on here about various factions and who is at loggerheads with who, etc. I don't know the history of who got the hump with who over what, and I could care less about it, but surely Mr Rae's first job, if there is substance to it, is to knock all this pettifogging on the head and get everybody to pull together.

To be fair, that's a pretty good statement. It says a lot of sensible things and gives some commitments which the Board need to keep. As they say themselves, now that they have talked the talk they need to walk the walk. There's quite a lot in the statement so apologies in advance for a longish post. Firstly, whilst I seem to recall someone saying Finlayson was just a fill in Chairman, the Board's statement regarding his appointment did not say so. Graham Rae was appointed to the Board after Cameron stood down so I wonder whether he was brought in with the intention of taking over after a period of familiarisation or whether the change of Chairman now is a result of Boardroom politics and/or related to the announced £500,000 investment. Regardless of that, the statement says that the whole of the investment will be "fully utilised towards addressing post and current financial shortfalls." Note that it says "towards". It is a good chunk of money but evidently not enough to fully address those shortfalls. It really does beg the question of what those shortfalls are and how they came about. What is heartening to read though, is the emphasis placed on prudent financial management going forward and not spending more than our income. It all smacks to me of an admission that there has been a period of overspending coupled with a recognition now of the need to return to the kind of sound financial management which was the keystone of our steady upwards progress in the past. Whilst the statement also talks about the goal of the Board being to return to the Premiership and compete for honours, it is interesting that it also states their desire to "restore the club to its rightful position at the heart of the Inverness community and delivering entertaining football ..." It specifically does not suggest that the club's rightful place is in the top flight. That may suggest a lack of ambition to some, but I think that is also a sensible and realistic position to take. We have no right to be in the top flight, but if we return, let it be because we have earned it and not because we have jeopardised the future of the club by spending beyond our means. What this means in practice is a significant period of rebuilding, and that might mean things getting worse on the playing side before they can get better. We are in a far worse position than when we were relegated before and we won't simply bounce back like last time for 2 reasons. Firstly we have lost so many of the players that allowed us to hold our own in the top flight, and secondly because much of our reduced income is already committed as a result of the financial mismanagement of the last 2 or 3 years. This season is all about survival both financially and on the park. For us as fans, it means facing up to the harsh realities of where we are and not having unrealistic expectations of the team. Our goal should simply be to not get relegated. If the Board can get back to balancing the books and the manager can keep us away from the drop, then next season we will have greater financial stability and a more settled team. We should then be able to start building again. The Board need to deliver on their statement and we need to hold them to account. In return, we need to give positive support to the team at this difficult time even though the standards and the results may not be what we would like and have come to expect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise where criticism is justified, but it does mean that we give our active support to the team through thick and thin.