Leaderboard

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.

I recieved an e-mail yesterday at 6:27pm from Caley Jags together which says "Hi Davie, following a Caley Jags Together Board meeting we would like to acknowledge reciept of your request for a meeting. We are working to make the necessary arrangements to deal with the business raised in your letter. We have set a provisional date of Wednesday 18th April at 7pm, we hope to be able to confirm this date along with the location in the very near future" It's signed by Hamish Wood Company Secretary. Notwithstanding that CJT are required by their rules to give 14 days clear (not provisional) notice of the meeting - and it's not appeared to anyone else, never mind the membership I'm of a mind to ask CJT here and now to make notice of this meeting on CTO. It's as close to a public forum that we have that reaches the membership. It wasn't my request, it was that of the thirty odd others willing to question the Board with me, Don Johnstone and John Horne. Find the venue, finalise your communication and date the meeting 14 days from that time so that all members have an equal opportunity to prepare and be there. After all, some people seemingly needed to firm up travel arrangements before the e-mail above was sent and we can't have that, can we.

I was a member of the Supporters' Trust but decided not to carry that on to CJT because, on reflection, membership of a supporters' organisation could constitute a conflict of interest since I have not yet quite retired from the reporting business. Furthermore - and somewhat ironically in view of recent posts - I feel that there could be a similar conflict of interest if I WAS a member of the organisation .....at a time when I may be making public and media comment on it as the jobbies get closer and closer to these rapidly spinning blades!

the 10% vote is most important at times like this.

In order to hold a meeting on that date, notice would have to have been given to members before midnight last night as "Clear Days" do not include the day notice is given or the day of the event.

You have to hand it to Brechin for sticking with it, and never whining. I have a soft spot for them after reading this: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/mar/09/brechin-city-no-league-win-scottish-championship I hope they get their win. They deserve an against the odds upset. I have seen them playing some better football than others in this division, although never for long enough in a match, and i think they have been unlucky a couple of times (not against us, though).

Robbo was giving instructions and encouragement to Seedorf in the second half when he was playing on the standside. He seems unsure of his positioning and maybe lacks a bit of confidence. It was crying out for someone on the right to take on the Brechin defence, just like the again impressive Calder did on the left, maybe this could have been a good run out for Mulraney or Daniel MacKay. Good win, but it could have been a lot more if we had taken our chances.

The SPFL have just published their scale of payouts for league placing and, since it's looking like a mid to lower table Championship finish for ICT, the club can expect around £200,000. The drop down within the Premiership in particular and from league to league is pretty vast - especially between the top two divisions where the bottom Premiership side, with £1.07M, gets twice the Championship winners' £533K. Just as a sign of how days have changed, if you take 7th in the Premiership as a not atypical ICT finish in years gone by, this season, that's worth £1.36M. It's just another reflection of the financial cost of relegation.

It's easy to say that we should've signed up our best players on longer term contracts but it isn't as simple as that. You are assuming that the players would want a contact of that length in the first place - in a lot of cases players prefer two year deals as it gives them a lot more leverage and opportunity. It also doesn't tie the club into deals that could end up costing a lot for a poor player. Look what happened when we gave a manager a long contract, it ended up costing the club.

Wonder if he'd like to stay in the Championship rather than drop down. I guess the problem is that because he's playing for Brechin you can't really tell how good he is. Worth a punt?

Polo Chick has it spot on. Brechin may be rock bottom with only four draws to their name, but they rarely get beaten by much. Whilst their defence are no great shakes, they are well organised and therefore scoring 4 against them is an excellent result. It shows we must be doing something right. I was impressed by both Seedorf on the right and Calder on the left. Whilst not tested much defensively, both put in excellent crosses.when they got forward. Calder in particular showed excellent first touch when receiving long balls. Mckay showed that he is far better in the centre than at Right back. He comfortably snuffed out danger on several occasion and then moved the ball on well. He had an excellent game. Chalmers too played well. He is a solid and composed player. Vigurs and Chalmers work well together. The down side to me was Bell. I am sure it was the intention to replace him for MacKay but Donaldson's injury put paid to that. Bell therefore had the full 90 minutes to stake a claim for a regular starting place but he failed to impress. He did well with the assist for Oakley's goal but other than that he worked his socks off to little effect. He was up against the weakest defence in the division but generally came out 2nd best. Austin looked far more threatening when he came on. I actually thought he showed enough against St Mirren to deserve a start against weaker opposition, so was pleased with his performance when he did come on. Unfortunately, after great work cutting in from the right, he was denied a goal by Chalmers backside! Whilst not the greatest of games and with a very flat atmosphere from a meagre crowd, there were certainly far more positives than negatives to take from the game. The manager has real choices to make in his team selection and we have a strong looking bench. Just a final word on Brechin. The last time they were here I commented on how impressed I was with their big striker Isaac Layne. Last night he was full of energy and constantly looked a threat whenever Brechin got the ball up the park. But Brechin don't get up the park very often and Layne gets little service and little support. He's only scored 2 goals all season. It must be so frustrating for him but he never stops trying. Good luck to the lad. I hope he gets an opportunity with a bigger club than Brechin

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.

Don't be too hard on Brechin, they have done very well to be in this league when you look at the full time teams still in Div 1.

Thanks cif73, that's my concern about Seedorf he is always hesitant these days, don't know what the cause of lack of confidence is, possibly in his head or due to his injury but he is definitely indecisive.

Any news as I need to make my travel arrangements. I don't want to be messed about like I was in 1993.

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

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.