Leaderboard

The only way that was not a red card would be if none of the officials saw the incident. As Samson got a yellow card then clearly the referee did see it. Had I done to a St Mirren fan what Samson did to Vigurs, I would have been escorted out of the ground by the police. It was assault pure and simple.

as major shareholders they are asking very direct questions shareholders should have been asking many years ago. I hope they get the answers to expose what has actually gone on. ?

I am lost for words that Samson was never sent off. It's possibly the most blatant red card offence you could ever see. The laws of the game are clear, under violent conduct (http://www.the-afc.com/uploads/afc/files/IFAB-laws-of-the-game-2017-2018.pdf Page 104): Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made. In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible. The highlighted text clearly shows why Samson should have been sent off. How McKendrick did not do so is completely unfathomable.

Hopefully lessons have been learned from past mistakes so let us just move on and let them all get together and sort out the mess

I was thinking we could put a referee's name for each choice ... but sadly I could not come up with any names for items 1-4 !

This work better ?

In MLS, I coined the phrase "The Gantar scale" on the photoblog I run because that ref is just so poor (consistently) ... although after the recent playoff round against NY Red Bulls, I temporarily replaced it with the "Penso Index" !!! I will change the template before tomorrow .... does this sound about right .... Excellent Good Average Poor Terrible worse than John McKendrick !!!

Me too. It's a shame I can't attend the AGM; it should be very interesting indeed! For those who haven't seen the letter, the gist seems to be an allegation that Tullochs have been simply using the club to feather their own nest. They suggest that the "gift" of the stands to the club is of little benefit to the club if Tullochs continue to own the lease and plan to develop the car parks. They point out that the lease was originally granted to the club by the Council but appears to have changed hands at least 3 times. They ask "Did the Club agree to the transfer of the Lease to property developers if there was no apparent benefit to the club? If so - why?" Given that they also say the lease has previously been valued at £30 million, that seems a very pertinent question. They go on to say "This great club seems to have lost its way with private interests taking precedence over the good of the club. This is shameful and totally at odds with the spirit of partnership between the Council, the Harbour Trust, HIE, and the original Highland League Clubs that characterised the birth of Caley Thistle. The possibility of the demise of Caley Thistle in these circumstances is real. " Serious and worrying stuff. I assume that the signatories will be raising these issues at the AGM. Of course, the current Board only has 3 directors with Allan MacKenzie and Graham Rae only being appointed in May of this year and Alan MacPhee in 2015. It is a new Board and I for one have no idea what their take on this might be. It certainly would appear to be significant that about a year after the announcement of the "gift" of the stands, the paper work surrounding this is still to be completed. I think there have been 2 or 3 statements in the past saying that it is expected that the deal will be completed with the next couple of weeks, but it never happens. Clearly there is more to it than meets the eye.. A further point is that this serious matter brings the ongoing concerns about CJT into focus. CJT has a 10% vote on the Board on behalf of the supporters and yet appears to remain moribund. It has put out an email to say it's AGM is on next Tuesday and yet 2 people who have previously been heavily involved in CJT have posted on this site to say they have received no notification. There has not been a word from CJT on this, the supporters' forum, about the AGM. Both the Club and the supporters body find themselves in a unholy mess. Hopefully this will not all dissolve into a hail of blame and recrimination. What is needed now is for people with the interests of the Club at heart to come together and work constructively to sort all this mess out. It doesn't look as though it will be an easy task.

Samson: John my old mate, what's that for? McKendrick: Not hitting him hard enough.

I think John Robertson will decide on that IF he has any money

Difficult to see the penalty properly on a small screen, but it's never a good idea to give a Scottish ref a decision to make. I take it Vigurs was booked for his reaction to the blatant simulation? If that's a yellow, how the hell did Samson stay on?

Definitely a penalty from where I am sitting. Not sure why anyone can think otherwise!

There is the small matter of a £422K loss for the last financial year and now cutting expenditure by £1.3M - which would leave a loss of "just" £300K for the current year. The question therefore maybe becomes - how possible would it be to take in anyone at all?

1. Penalty? On reflection, yes. Clumsy by Polworth. Gave the ref a decision to make. 2. Vigurs? Really harsh to go off for these two yellows. For the 1st, he was getting kicked to bits. For the 2nd, look forward to abandoned games if that's the measure. 3. Samson? So should have gone. I'm still furious about this one. Notice how he virtually thanks the ref (right hand acknowledgment) for just receiving a yellow. He thought he was gone too!