Leaderboard

On 22nd March, Don posted "A letter has been delivered to CJT today (22nd March 2018) instructing the existing board to convene an EGM. The letter is backed, in name, by 37 society members." Liz says above "I only picked up the letter of request from members for the Special General Meeting on Saturday 31st March (I dont go down to the club every day to check post)" Despite having been told via this forum that a letter which requires urgent action had been delivered to the stadium, nobody from the CJT "Board" is apparently able to collect it until 9 days afterwards. I'm frankly lost for words.

After all that has happened, and very often not happened, it beggars belief that the incumbent office bearers have failed in the very simple and straightforward task of providing the minimum legal notice of this meeting. Caley D, is right, to hold this meeting now without the requisite notice is fraught with potential difficulties. At the start of this sorry affair, the board had my sympathy. Personally speaking, this latest fiasco has lost that sympathy completely. There may be good intentions but, once a properly constituted meeting does take place, the present office bearers should be replaced en masse by people who can run things competently. I'm sorry but this is the last straw and enough is enough.

I'm typing this on behalf of nobody but myself. The priority in all this is to get an EGM called in order to ensure that the appointed board is compliant and in a position to deal with everything else and move the society out of the hole it currently finds itself in. How we arrived at this position is immaterial at this time. Ignoring the 14 day notice period is not an option. If you were to crack on with that, then a single objection (which you already have) would render the meeting...and any business transacted at that meeting...unconstitutional. You can't kick start a period of improved governance with a breach of regulations!! That leaves two options.... 1. You further ignore the society rules, do nothing and leave it to the members to call and control the EGM.* 2. You communicate with those who requisitioned the meeting to seek an extension to the 28 days, find a compromise and/or work together to set the date for the EGM. The second option is what would be best for the society....IMO....as it moves things forward in the most timely and cost efficient manner, whilst adhering to the society rules and company law. * I don't want to expand on this as it may come across as me trying to be intimidating but PLEASE, for your own good, look up the implications of not fulfilling your responsibilities as a director of a ltd company.

There is a Feckin date and Feckin time and a Feckin venue and a Feckin agenda. Get Feckin on with it and don't bother with all the mumbojumbo- I am up in Sneckie on the Friday so I will pop in as I suspect that the meeting will still be Feckin going. I will now leave this thread to the amateur legal eagles.

I still can't help but get the feeling that this Board - whether it is self- appointed or has simply failed to reveal the manner of its formation - simply doesn't have a clue as to how serious a situation it faces. This isn't the local Allotments Committee. It's the Board of a Limited Company and as such is subject to the provisions of the Companies Act. What we are now learning is that this Board isn't even capable of organising a meeting within a clearly specified set of rules - and worse still, its excuse for not doing so is that it doesn't have an effective system for receiving communications. I suppose all I can say to that is that, given its non-existent means of giving out communications, this is hardly surprising! Perhaps the current Board's inability to perform even the basic function of receiving communication should also be noted at the forthcoming meeting, because the sorry tale of the calling of this meeting is as unacceptable as the earlier statement that they weren't going to call one on their own initiative because they (conveniently) didn't think it would do any good. I've heard some feeble excuses for self-preservation, but I find this ongoing pantomime to be a regular learning experience.

Would be interested in the forum's view of the players we have allowed to leave for nominal fees or in some cases for nothing due to contracts having expired. Should players who are clearly a cut above, I'm thinking Christie, Watkins and Shinnie and to a lesser extent Meekings and Tansey have been tied up under longer term contracts so that we could negotiate larger transfer fees? We seem to have left contract extension negotiations to the last minute in the past when a players head has already been turned by another offer. As everyone will be aware, Christie is still on loan to Aberdeen which rather sticks in my throat, we could have done with him last season, he may have been the difference between relegation and staying up.

Trying to keep all my Toronto FC postings in here ... apart from the odd mention in the matchday threads ! After winning it all last season ... and becoming the first team in MLS history to do the treble of domestic cup (Canadian Championship), Supporters Shield (equivalent to league champions) and MLS Cup ... there is a 4th trophy on the wish-list this year for TFC. The CONCACAF Champions League. This is the equivalent of the UEFA Champions League albeit not to the same quality but does still feature some strong teams from Mexico and other Central American and Caribbean countries and provides the winner with entry to the Club World Cup to be staged in Dubai in December. For the last 9 years it has been won by Mexican teams and on 7 of those occasions it was Mexican -V- Mexican teams in the final ! Only Salt Lake and Montreal from MLS have competed in the final in the last 10 years. So far this year TFC have edged out MLS rivals Colorado Rapids as well as current Liga MX Apertura champions Tigres UANL. On Tuesday they faced perennial powerhouses Club America who are 7 time winners of the Champions League and 12 time Liga MX winners. In typical CONCACAF fashion it was a rip-roarer of a night. The rain was pelting down, TFC won 3-1, there were accusations by the Mexican coach of Police brutality and that the referee made them change their underwear (!!!?) and from TFC manager that one of ours got an elbow to the face in the tunnel at half-time. The CCTV footage should be fun to watch when they release it .... Next week its off to Mexico and the famed Azteca stadium for the 2nd leg ... or in my case, a beer in front of the TV ! Its a standing joke about the officiating in Mexico and 3-1 may not be a big enough cushion ... but TFC fans were heartened when CONCACAF announced yesterday that the ref for this game will not be from CONCACAF but one of the top rated FIFA refs from the Asian Federation. Its part of a new referee exchange programme between the two federations [source] Took a ton of pictures at the game on Tuesday : click the image below to get to my Flickr Album for anyone interested

Apologies! I just looked at a 2 month old post and replied.... never thinking that someone else had made the same post a couple of days previously. Like Admiral Nelson.... I kind of took my eye off the musket ball.

He would certainly add another brick to the wall.

The following has been sent by email to [email protected] at 10:55am on 5th April 2018 and is presented here as an "open letter" in lieu of us having the means to send it directly to ICT Supporters Society members. FAO the Society Board We note the Special General Meeting notice placed on caleythistleonline.com and make the following observations on behalf of the 37 members who, on the 22nd March 2018, instructed you to call the Special General Meeting. Unless you have made other, earlier, attempts to contact all members with notice of the meeting then you have failed to meet the requirements to provide notice "at least 14 clear days before the date of the meeting" - definition of "clear days" can be found at https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/clear+days Unless notices have also been sent to members by one, or more, of the methods laid out in the society's rules, then you have failed to meet the requirements for providing due notice of the meeting. The notice indicates that 3 members have made the request for the meeting. This is a misrepresentation of the instruction you received which was from 37 members in total. As per the letter requesting the SGM, the purpose of the meeting was to be... to vote on the removal of all persons from the Society Board. to hold a fresh election to appoint members to the Society Board in accordance with the society’s rules. Your addition of the words "to resolve" in the notice issued would suggest that the presentation of the matters as delivered to you is somehow up for discussion prior to them being put before the meeting for a vote. This is not the case and the matters are to be presented as delivered in the members request for the meeting. You are entitled to seek discussion of these matters before they are presented to the meeting, but you do not have the authority to make any amendment and/or to place any condition on voting for the matters as detailed in the instruction delivered to you on 22nd March 2018. You lost the right to construct the resolutions for this SGM by refusing to call it of your own accord. Furthermore, the notice does not include any board nomination forms, details on when nominations need to be received, in what form and what procedures will be used to conduct the election; or the Board Membership Policy document, which details what nominees are agreeing to by standing for the board. Nor does it include any proxy information and/or forms. All this information should be laid out in the society's Election Policy document which should be used in conjunction with the society's Standing Orders for General Meetings document. As there is very little time available for you to arrange a new date and to issue the relevant notice and accompanying information, whilst adhering to the timescales of the notice provided on 22nd March 2018, then we would anticipate a speedy reply in resolution to the matters noted above. Regards, David Balfour - John Horne - Donald Johnstone on behalf of the 37 members represented by the notice delivered to you on 22nd March 2018.

IF this, plus any other means of announcement, meet Companies House guidelines for the process of publicising General Meetings, notice was issued at around 2330 on 4th April for a meeting on 18th April. According to this:- www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/Clear-days-some-clarity-9061.aspx ... and in particular to this quote from it:- "All notice periods for shareholders' meetings must be notice periods of 'clear' days. This means that the notice period must exclude the day on which notice is sent as well as the day on which the meeting is to be held".... the period of notice given for this meeting appears to be 13 clear days. Does this fulfil the requirements of Companies House legislation and of the CJT Articles of Association? Also, does the wording of the notice mean that the debate on Resolution 1 will be followed by a vote on it on the night? And if that vote was to be for the removal of the current Board, what would the procedure and timescale be for the election of a new one in terms of Resolution 2?

So firstly.... who appointed the Board then? Was a properly constituted, properly minuted and properly concluded General Meeting of the Company involved? If not, then how was the Board appointed? The manner of its appointment seems not unrelated to the current requisition for a General Meeting with a motion for it to stand down. In terms of court action, you have correctly used the conditional - "MIGHT be necessary" - which reflects what I said. I am sure you are aware of how close the Board is to being in breach of the Articles of Association and hence of the Companies Act, in terms of providing categorical arrangements for a meeting to the membership within the prescribed timescale. In terms of my interest in CJT, I'm perfectly entitled to express my views on and take an interest in anything I want without the need to be a member of it. For instance, I am not a member of any political party but still feel free to express my views on any of them. But more to the point here, I AM a shareholder in Inverness Caledonian Thistle and am hence more than entitled to express a view on a body which has a protected 10% voting right in that company - especially when the group claiming to control that body make the Masons look like the inventors of the Freedom Of Information Act. Indeed, I would suggest that your very questioning of my interest is just another reflection of the extremely defensive and restrictive attitude which has been the hallmark of this Board rom the start. Please remember that it even had to be prodded before it would reveal who it members are! If the Board are well aware of the timescale, then presumably you are equally aware of when and how you are legally obliged to provide the membership with confirmed details of the General Meeting which has been requisitioned.

Charles firstly the board is not self appointed Not sure on what grounds you think court action might be necessary. I once again note that you are not a member and never have been so your interest in this really amazes me. The board are well aware if the timescale required to hold the meeting and the email Davie mentions was purely a matter of courtesy and the meeting will be confirmed and due notice given

Agree about the chances that game could/should of been 8 nil but i thought Seedorf at RB was good last night he put some good crosses into the box which Brad at RB is unable to do. Gutted young Daniel didn't get on as i think he would of scored some of those missed opportunities . Hope Coll not badly injured him & Brad in defence works way better but have to mention love him or loath him when Vigurs got subbed the midfield was not nearly as good and Brechin got more of the ball fair play to them they never stopped trying.

TORONTO 3 AMERICA 1

Strangely a lot of the news articles seemed to be deleted in regards to his arrest. The Pink Floyd song of course is about a man who steals womens clothes off washing lines. Seems rather fitting...

To be perfectly honest im currently at a loss as to how to move forward here! Every which way I turn there is one way or other that im non compliant and getting shot down for it. 1) I only picked up the letter of request from members for the Special General Meeting on Saturday 31st March (I dont go down to the club every day to check post) 2) As soon as received the board have been in discusion trying to arrange this as we only have 28 day from date of the letter which was 22nd March. 3) We issued the initial notice on social media last night after we confirmed that a suitable place was available and all current board members were available. 4) Our next actions was to comply with the standing orders for election (copy attached) which requires us to have an independant committee to deal with this. These people would then issue monination papers, proxies etc. Maybe its not 100% complient to every rule etc, I hold my hands up to that as it was not physically possible with the limited numebr of board members we have to be able to get the notices etc out within the 14 days given to us. So the way forward, miss the 28 day deadline and re-schedule or cary on with that date with the help of members who are not board members? Anybody who wishes to be in the committee for election please come forward as this is our next stumbling block to compliance! Regards Liz MacRae Current Chairperson of CJT 2012_election_policy-1.pdf

The current board appear to be running the club into the ground. It's reflected in our dire attendances. I doubt a fans group will make much (if any) difference.