Leaderboard

That is my understanding of the rules. What's more, there was an uncontested & accepted motion from the floor at the AGM for an EGM at the earliest opportunity. I'll comment on your second question at the end. Caleytrue, you are the same as the vast majority of fans....and that is entirely ok. Football should be about turning up on a Saturday (or whatever other day TV or ridiculous winter midweek fixtures may dictate) to cheer on your team with friends, family etc....then enjoy the post match analysis when you get home, back to the pub and/or online here or wherever you might partake of a bit of social media chatter. A Supporters Society, such as CJT, is a "Community Benefit" organisation. As the name suggests, it exists to serve the community (made up of fans, club etc) and not (directly) the individual interests of it's members. One of the listed objectives in the rules is to ensure that the club operates with good governance and that the club board looks after the fans, club's and community's interests.....just the same as any other rights/shareholder can/should do for themselves and the club. They (CJT) have a duty to communicate with the community (and not just their members). That should, in an ideal world, mostly be about letting people know everything is fine, but it is also needed when it's necessary to gather fan opinion or when some form of action is needed.....good or bad. Beyond that, CJT also carry within their constitution the authority to strengthen their position in regards to the operation and ownership of the club and, in that regard, may seek to undertake fundraising for the purchase of shares, running campaigns, backing initiatives/projects etc. Why join if your interests are being looked after regardless? To do as you have said and support those who are actively working towards those ends, to ensure that those who represent the organisation (and your interests) operate with good governance and to be in a position to take part in any decision making that may be required from time to time. The voting right of CJT actually sits at slightly above 10%. In addition to the 10% voting right attached to the shares transferred from the old Members Club, they have purchased additional shares over the years....so they have been working to grow their influence, although not so much in the last 5 years or so. In regards to the above two quoted posts.....Supporters Direct (Scotland) are the umbrella organisation for Supporters Trusts. They used to have a primary remit for helping club's fans set up their own trusts, and were very successful in doing so. That remit has since shifted to one where their primary aim is helping Supporters Trust that are looking to obtain major stake in/ownership of their clubs. Aside from the legislative inclusions that come with being registered as an Industrial and Provident Society, there is within CJT's rules, articles which require us to adhere to some of the guidelines and principles laid down by Supporters Direct. It is not their (Supporters Direct) job to be running our, on anyone else's, Supporters Trust and I have concerns over the advice they (CJT) claim they are getting. It's either completely wrong, or not based on being given all the facts. For that reason I will be making contact with Supporters Direct in due course to seek some clarity from them....although, the last time they were contacted about claims of advice they were giving to CJT, they said they had no knowledge of working with them on anything! Supporters Direct Scotland website - http://www.supporters-direct.scot/ Again I will cover the previous two quotes in single response....latter first. Financial Records ARE up to date as Hearach says. This can be seen on the FCA register at https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=2665&Suffix=RS The ones for which the society was almost struck off were brought up to date in 2013 (again, that can corroborated on the above link)....so the claim by CJT would appear to be that it has taken over 4 years to get the rules sorted and submitted? The error on the rules (and I know as I dealt with it at the time) were minimal. Supporters Direct had failed to provide the final draft and one of the rules wasn't pertinent to our setup and there was some minor issue with numbering. These were sorted and cleared by me with both the FSA/FCA and Supporters Direct for re-submitting. It was then left in the hands of others on the board, who were also working on the returns, to get that done. Even if you accept the refusal to register the rule change without completion of the returns (and I don't*) then it could/should have been done anytime after the end of April 2013. *I disagreed with this at the time (I was on the board then), I saw no documentation to support this at the time and I resigned due to having no support from the wider board in getting it sorted at the time. I hold pertinent qualifications and worked as a compliance auditor responsible for upholding FSA rules; so have an understanding of their workings. I agree that what's most important now is moving things forward, but I feel that people need an understanding of how we have arrived where we are so we can learn from it and make the best decisions for tidying up and advancing the society. I've consciously not included or attached individual names to anything I have said because this is not personal and, as a board, they have joint and several liability...whilst the board is, and should be, democratic; if an individual board member believes that fundamental errors exist and they accept that and do nothing, then they are as culpable as the rest. It is apparent that current (and recently resigned) board members refuse/d to communicate openly with the wider member base and fans (as a community benefit society their responsibility is not only to the members). In fact, I had the first communication I've had in months from one of the board members by email during the last week and it stated that they would not be getting into any public discussions...either at meetings or online...which is unacceptable! I am fully aware of the personal circumstances of a couple of the current CJT board and have every sympathy, but this isn't a matter that can't be allowed to drag on. if the society was not in the state it was then there would be other board members to pick up and run with things, but there's not. There remains a single board member who only joined the board at the recent AGM and who will have had no time to get up to speed on anything. If there is no communication from the CJT board in the near future as to when the EGM will be and/or how matters are to be moved on, then I am willing to arrange a venue and time for an open fans meeting (if that's what people want) where options (as to how things are taken forward) can be discussed.

It is just like Tulloch and Savage

I don't see it that way at all. The common bottom line is this - were it not for external financial intervention, neither club would have achieved a fraction of what it has done. In Ross County's case, the appearance is that there's been a constant, generous financial drip feed of funds which have allowed infrastructure to be built and wages to be paid at such a level that it has been possible to achieve Premiership football in 2012 and then sustain it, including top six finishes and a national trophy win. Otherwise, what might County have become? A Championship - League One yoyo club? In the case of Caley Thistle, the assistance - which may or may not total less than in County's case but has been far more life saving - has simply worked differently. This is because of the critical mess the club got into in around 2000 with its approximately £2.5 million debt. No amount of revisionism will alter the cold fact that if that debt had not been taken away, the club would have gone into administration or receivership. As we all know that debt was removed by Tullochs, the only game in town, who also provided working capital and then upgraded the stadium. The net effect of Tullochs' £5.3 - £6M intervention was, in five years, to effect a transformation from virtual bankruptcy to playing SPL football, debt free in a fully compliant stadium. However, two issues have intervened to alter the perception of that process in the eyes of far too many. Firstly, there has been a failure to realise, or to accept, that Tullochs aren't a philanthropic society although they have accepted a significant net loss by becoming involved with Caley Thistle. And secondly, we are back to the delusion that's too often held in football that the world somehow owes the game a living. Back in 2000, Caley Thistle had hugely overstretched its means. To be brutally realistic, I would also have to add - very reluctantly indeed because he also did a huge amount of good for the club - that this was under the chairmanship of one of the main complainers about the manner in which salvation from a potentially fatal event was then achieved. The club's future existence was secured by Tullochs, but what I seem to be seeing now is some kind of revisionist view that it might have been better after all if their considerable assistance had been rejected and oblivion had been allowed to ensue.

HUGE AWAY SUPPORT

I felt we really missed Vigurs in midfield today. Polworth worked his socks off and whilst he had a couple of decent efforts on goal his weakness were rather apparent today. He tries to play the telling through ball but too often he delays too long or simply misplaces the pass and loses possession. And for a central midfielder he simply doesn't win enough ball. Chalmers is generally solid enough. He gets into space and moves the ball quickly but rarely to any telling effect. Trafford is much the same although probably a better ball winner. I think Alex makes an excellent point about defending from the front. It was often the 3 at the front who nipped in and dispossessed the Dumbarton midfield and prevented attacks developing. Without that, and in the absence of Vigurs, there would have been a lot more pressure on our defence. Our good defensive record recently is a reflection of a great all round team effort and having a very astute manager. But we do need to create and take more chances if we are to make the play offs. I thought Mulraney did pretty well in that regard today, he varied his play well, was determined in the tackle and gave a good team performance. It seemed to me that he tweaked a muscle in the 2nd half and maybe should have come off sooner. We need to get a better understanding between the midfield and our front men as there were several instances today when opportunities to create a chance were lost. Another very commanding performance from Ridgers. All these clean sheets seem to be giving him and the back four confidence in themselves and each other. All in all, not the prettiest of games but a very important win and far more positives than negatives.

I know that decision-making in the final third was disappointing on numerous occasions today but singling out Polly as having a terrible game seems harsh to me. Today, he had his trademark runs again carrying the ball from midfield as attacks started (he is our most effective player in that role) and he had one or two decent efforts on goal. The disappointment for me was the misunderstanding between midfielders and forwards with some final balls but that is as much their fault as it is his.

Despite thinking we should be beating Dumbarton we need to acknowledge that their recent results have been good and that they have been hard to beat. However on a difficult surface the boys again answered the question. This is most pleasing aspect of the run caley have been on. The team spirit is good and they are working for each other. Funny time of year for results and hopefully we keep on this upward trajectory. Hope Robbo and all the team and stadium staff have a relaxed and enjoyable xmas. Not been the easiest of times recently and well done to everyone for keeping positive and turning things round??

Believe it or not Tulloch / Sutherland do nought for nothing. They are waiting patiently to make an absolute fortune

Love the video. Our team seems to be playing and trying hard. I also liked the encouraging applause from the crowd when their efforts didn't quite come off. A bit disjointed up front perhaps what with few ICT players attempting to get into the box to intercept the passes about to penetrate from the outer areas. The pitch didn't seem to be as bad as I had first imagined based on the remarks from John Robertson and others. Whatever, it's deffo time for Summer football. Anybody like to comment on that? Would also probably make a significant difference to the size of the crowd in the stadium. The SFA produced a questionnaire last season(was it?) and I completed it requesting summer football but heard nothing further. Did they ever publish the outcome.....? Fouling was kept to a minimum which was a refreshing change and Caley had a fine look about them perhaps enhanced by the fact that Dumbarton rarely tried to advance to stop the forward momentum of our team as we attacked. Falling back always , well, this can almost inevitably lead to a goal scored against you....? They were a workmanlike team though !

That game summed us up perfectly. Mostly fine at the back (Donaldson was like a young Franco Baresi at the back as per usual these days) but precious little going forward with almost no link between midfield and forwards. Polworth, Bell and Baird seemed to be on completely different wavelengths to each other and seldom seemed to find each other with their passes leading to numerous attacks breaking down as we reached the edge of the Dumbarton box. Mulraney had a good spell in the first half where he fizzed in a couple of decent looking crosses but I forgot he was even on the pitch in the second half he was so quiet. Hopefully we can get someone in the January transfer window that can provide a creative spark and another who can score goals. A lot of guff still kicking about the squad just now who are just a waste of a wage.

Must have been some bake off competition that year . Maybe we need Mary Berry on the board.

At least this board appears to be trying to clear up the mess that they have inherited from the previous regimes and I do have some faith that at last we have a board who better understands the needs of the business that is ICT. Various boards have squandered commercial opportunities in the past (after our cup final win for example) and more focus needs to go on commercial opportunities than perhaps the football side to help the club's finances. As to why the Inverness public don't turn out, some of that is due to the incessant moaning from some of our own supporters which does turn certain people away. For some reason, there just does not seem to be the affinity their should be between city and club.

On the contrary, it is indeed totally unlike the two occasions both well over a decade ago when we were baked out by Tullochs and, perhaps more to the point, love him or loath him, Roy McGregor's only motive is the love of the club he supports.

Is the simple answer not that they have a wealthy individual willing to subsidise them year upon year ?

Listen to what Robbo said about the pitch. His after match comments are always good value, and honest insight into the team. I particularly like his remarks about January signings where he says he has three earmarked, but will only consider players who are better than what we have already. Some very welcome common sense and practical attitude after the last two dreamers.

KOB is correct. It should perhaps also be remembered that the world doesn't owe football a living.

not interested!

Just because Tulloch have helped the club in the past does not mean they will always do so in the future. I have no doubt that they are genuine in wanting the club to prosper and are willing to play a part in that, however, their priority will always be the success and security of their business. If the interests of the club conflict with the interests of the business then you can be sure which interest they will prioritise. I'm afraid I can't make the AGM but I will be very interested to hear what transpires.

If Tullochs have secured the leasehold from their dealings with ICT, I would suggest they've already done extremely well out of them. How can the board negotiate hard when they have nothing to bargain with?

I think everyone should just park at Tullochs headquarters on match ay and get a supporter bus arranged to ferry us to the games. Tulloch don' care about the club it's obvious and their refusal to deny the removal of the car parks speaks volumes

Have been keeping an eye on Chris Duggan of East Fife who is now getting a run after being dogged by a hamstring injury which turned out to be a torn muscle. Has paid his dues in the lower leagues, was on Partick's books and is now starting to score regularly. Still only 23. As you move up the leagues the quality of ball tends to be better which helps a striker who can finish. Just my tuppence worth.

All I really want to do is cheer on my local football team so I read this forum as a good way of learning what is going on (or isn't!) but don't post as I feel there are many others better placed to discuss all the topics. On this one however I would like to say that I agree with Robert (above) that given a chance I would sign up to be part or a member of CJT just because it's a way of lending support to the club and fanbase but also to keep CJT alive. As a not practically or politically involved 'supporter ' (no Happy Clapper' comments please) I wouldn't jump forward to claim a place on the board or anything, I wouldn't have time or capability to be any use, but I would want to help keep going a body which holds a 10% voting right in the club. The politics are alarming to read about, and it seems to me that it is important that a body involving grass roots fans and with the club's future at heart must be kept in a role where it can have influence.

Hamilton v county attendance today was 1200.

Someone has been drinking too much festive sherry. Without Sutherland and Tulloch we would not have a club to talk about..

both over rated imo

You mean not totally unlike ICT being baled out by Tullochs?