Leaderboard

He did well today. Rather than turning back and playing a backward pass, he wanted to take his man on and had the beating of him. It was good to see. He also was in a brilliant position to make it 4-2 but Pepple didn’t spot him and the chance was gone. Kerr on the other flank also had a good game, whilst Shaw was playing wide today and had a few decent runs and crosses. We should have won, we didn’t, but I came away heartened by what I saw. I hope we appeal Anderson’s red card but if we don’t have him next week, MacGregor should get a start.

What’s your point? ILE and their experts oversaw the application and have been through this process many times. And what do you think the planning department’s pre-submission advice would have been, given that they are totally against it happening? The club did very well to overcome the hurdles that were put in front of them and to convince enough voters to get it through a quorate vote.

Seeing the goals we conceded, all were stoppable which adds to the frustration at not winning. We failed to clear our lines twice and got caught out by a quick free kick and conceded the penalty. However, looking at the goals we scored, Partick will be feeling the exact same. Mckay played a blinder at Savage’s goal by ensuring the goalie could not get near it. For those criticising Ridgers in the thread, I don’t see how he could be blamed for any of the goals and he’d a couple of good saves which he should get credit for. On the red card, in real time I thought it was very harsh as did those around me. With the benefit of seeing it again, I agree with both STFU and tm4tj. An appeal may not be successful but there was no malice and many refs would have let it go or just given a yellow.

TBF, if the application was 'shoddy' is that really fully at the door of the club, you surely blame the experts ILI given their involvement having provided consultants and support. Sounds like another cheap dig at the board based on bias rather than facts. Additionally let's not overlook this application was approved was so clearly those with the decision making powers thought more of it than some online experts.

I’m very disappointed with the result, particularly after leading 2-0 and 3-2 but what an enjoyable game that was. We started on the front foot, with none of the back and fro passing that’s dominated our recent performances. Kerr’s goal was a cracker, calmly taken after a great pass by McAllister, and we deservedly led at the break although we had some nervous moments. Partick came out flying in the second half and our second was against the run of play, and we were then let down by poor defending for their first and getting caught napping at a free kick and conceding the penalty. I thought we were done for then, but credit to the players for lifting themselves and taking the lead again, and we should have gone 4-2 up but Pepple went alone when he should have played Harper in. We then conceded, meaning its twelve points we’ve lost late in games. It was the best I’ve seen from Harper and Shaw for some time, whilst Kerr had a good game, but the pick for me was McAllister. I’ve no idea why we took him off so early in the second half. Anderson should not have been sent off. Maybe a booking would have been deserved but many refs would not have produced a card. Overall, much better, encouraging signs, but we need to cut out silly errors. Two massive games ahead now.

ICT never seem to get benefit of the doubt but, I think taking off McAllister seemed to take most of the ‘buzz’ out of the team. Fans dread the time for the subs to be made as the team seem to lose focus - also Doran (on as a sub) then subbed for Udger in extra time? On to shore up defence in case of a last minute losing goal? Oh dear, tactics seem odd, but heyho what do I know.

They didn't really though. They submitted a shoddy application to begin with and didn't address all the points of concern (loss of green space) when handing in the extra info. That said, it's still a bizarre situation and Highland Council still come across as pretty inept.

They're usually dumbstruck!!

It wouldn’t. The fact that the site is on green land means that the planning department's advice would have been that the project is incapable of meeting their requirements for recommending approval - unless you know of a way to build a battery farm without taking up any space! I’m pretty sure the club knew all along that this would be the biggest challenge and the only way to overcome it would be to stress the wider benefits to the community and to the environment that would result from it going ahead, which is what they did.

If the question is 'Could the club have been reasonably expected to have done more?', then for me the answer yes. I was highlighting the fact that there was an option for the club to have the decision makers look over their submission ahead of time. This would have allowed them to deal with some of the concerns/objections raised in a more timely fashion and might have even avoided the situation that has now arisen. From my following of what's happened, nobody with the planning dept has objected to anything (it's not their place to do so). What they have done is highlighted areas where the proposal does not meet planning requirements. You'll also get no argument from me that the last planning meeting was a shambles. Having realised that only 5 of the planning committee were eligible to vote the chair should have not allowed it and immediately referred it to full council for a decision. By allowing it and then asking for it to be referred, especially given how he voted, the chair has opened himself and his peers up to accusations of foul play. People keep saying that all concerns and objections were met, but that is also not the case. The loss of protected green land was not satisfactorily addressed, which is why it was still recommended for rejection. There were also still a number of conditions to be attached to address remaining concerns on other aspects and it's not certain all of these can/will be met. Even of it is accepted at full council, there's no guarantee the club gets a pay day. Conveniently they will have created enough of a shitstorm to then blame it on delays and everyone else messing them around. As I said at the start of this post, they refused an option which could easily have expedited things.

There’s been a similar challenge in the Sheffield United v Brighton game just now. A bit high, no malice and no force, and a yellow given with the commentators saying it was the right decision. As you say, we gave the ref a decision to make and a red was the outcome.

Definitely no malice, but undoubtedly a high foot. I don't think the rules even require contact to be made to justify a card in such a situation. That's why an appeal would be a waste of time and money. Looking at the conceded penalty as well, and it's not clear if there was any contact. If there was, it was minimal. Unfortunately, we've twice given the ref a decision to make when we maybe didn't have to, and when you do that there's always a chance it goes against you.

In this case if the club had gone without expert inputs everyone would say how its unprofessional etc, but on this occasion it actually looks like they considered the approach most would deem prudent. The gaps outlined in the initial proposal were a identified and addressed, it may be argued that a more robust proposal could have been made, but why burn time and money if it is considered by all that it was adequate based on previous analogues?

Isn't it amazing how the club always have someone or something between themselves and accountability when things go teets up?

Mcgregor is a much more proven player than Bray but unfortunately has been plagued by injury. I don't think Dunc fancies him

With calls for Dunc to go already in some corners of our support, it's maybe worth revisiting what expectations were on arrival. Concensus was 4th to 8th with us currently 8th and only 4 points off 5th is this not what was expected as being optimistic?

Ach, he's an interviewer, not a boxer

Did we not beat Ayr and Airdrieonians at home? Anyway don't worry...I'm flying up for the Dunfermline match, so it'll definitely be sunny and we will win.

No. The defense cost us the goals. Lets not go full Doddsball and drop Ridgers to the weans to "prove a point". When you've Ujdur, who has proven he is more than capable, sitting on the bench for 90+ minutes, with a defence full of kids who've done sweet sod all, its stupid to try and blame anyone but the defense and the management...

I think he was brought in because the board were starstruck!

Thanks Robert, as Douglas said “this team is a work in progress” so hopefully they’re getting to know each other and will gel better before the next two games - nothing less than 6 points needed from them!

Why is Anderson ahead of a now fit MacGregor?

FFS totally gutted. thought we were lucky to go in at half time 1 up. Got lucky again when we got the second, goalkeeper misjudged the cross and savage easily headed in to go 2 up. said to myself hope Dunc doesn’t do his norm when we are ahead and go into survival mode. Can hear him now in his post match comfy interview say they came at us second half. Truth is we stopped doing what we had been doing and invited them to come at us. So they did. best form of defence is attack, we blew it today. highlight of first half was a pass back to Ridgers, I think he hit his clearance into their player and ball spun into air on our bye line. Ridgers is now facing the north stand and attempts a hoof of the ball over the stand. Total fresh air kick resulting in him then heading the ball out for a corner. You couldn’t make it up. anderson red card was straight out of the ref pocket, no second to think. Anderson first touch for a pro footballer was so poor today, the ball rising into the air as he tried to control it many times. That was what happened for the sending off as he raised his boot into the players head to get the ball. The Partick guy we down clutching his head. Once the red was shown he miraculously recovered and didn’t require hospital treatment. I was firmly seated on the fence re Dunc the manager, starting to slide off a bit now after today.

I am glad we've strengthened at the back.

It was an inevitability that Graham would score against us, it was just a question of whether we could score more than them. In fairness 3 would normally be enough to win and is the encouraging thing we can take from today, if we want to be positive.

That was more like an exciting game and certainly was not flat. I thought we were better first half, Partick took second half. I thought we had some nice touches and there was some good play.We have to remember that this team is work in progress and half the squad are new.We gave away soft goals and could have won it if pebble had just passed to Cammy running up his inside. That was never a red card when you consider kerr being poleaxed and no cards shown. At least we never lost,which looked highly possible the way things were going . Positive signs althoughI must admit some of the substitution were a bit strange.

From the BBC website, I don't think it was insipid and boring today!

I've always assumed that that was partly why Big Dunc was brought in - for his knowledge of and contacts in English football. Possibly easier to get inexpensive or loan players from there than from the Central Belt of Scotland. Let's face it - he wasn't hired on the basis of his managerial record!

24 pt swing….

His ankles are made of poppadoms, needs to toughen up a bit otherwise he'll just go straight back to the broken pile.

Brilliant graphic from Raith Rovers I don't see Inverness in the race

Make your mind up! Are you going or not going.....

I'm going 3-1 PT. We won't handle Graham and our goal would likely be a penalty. Plus I'm not going as I can't stand our insipid and boring tactics.

Well done to Kayleigh

With Devine, Boyes and Ujdur all out or struggling, it’s a good job we brought defenders in! I hope they can handle Graham. If they can, I actually fancy us to get something from this.

I’m no expert in this, but does our club licensing not also have SFA requirements to meet about the timely filing of financial statements, and that they show the club to be a going concern? Last year’s accounts were only approved by the Auditors due to the potential revenue from the Battery Park. That is now at risk and the Auditors may not feel able to provide the necessary sign off to the accounts: that was my concern when I highlighted the risk of administration or something worse. The Chairman made it clear at the Fans’ Meeting that the Board members were not going to continue to plough money in and, indeed, the two recent payments made to the club, including one from the Chairman, came with protection to the lenders. Events over the next few weeks will determine if we have a future, and how positive any future can look. Getting back to on pitch maters, to make matters worse, with Dunfermline hosting Arbroath tomorrow, there is every chance that we will find ourselves second bottom after tomorrow’s game.

Unfortunately, in a situation like this, tough tits. The club have every right to be pissed off at the current situation. They did everything the Council had asked to bring the project up to scratch, and it got approved, sealing a future for the club for however many years/decades to come. But now, because the council haven't done their job properly, the club's back creeping towards deaths door. It's like if you won EuroMillions and when you go to cash it in, they start babbling incoherently about how you didn't win because the machine that was giving out the numbers started playing up. You're not joing to stand there and say "oh, okay then" and periodically check in and say "hey guys, hows it coming along then?", you'd be kicking up an absolute storm demanding your winnings and readying up for a legal battle against them. Have to remember it's not just football thats at stake here, it's people's jobs, before and after school activities for kids, leisure for seniors and this, that and the other that the Council are ready to send down the Ganges then sit on their hands when people start complaining.

I think this is a reasonable and understandable metaphor to deploy in the cicumstances. However, let’s not kid ourselves - the club are being hypocrites on this. They have made it quite clear all along in public that they intend to appeal if/when things don’t go their way.

There will doubtless be a few other old buffers on here who will remember the ghastly, clusterboorach that the Council got itself into on a previous occasion when it was involved in a decision that had existential implications for Caley Thistle - namely the £900K grant towards the stadium road in 1995-96. There’s no need to detail the Town Hall obstructiveness,, QCs’ opinions, scandalous rearguard action by Council officials and nitpicking about Dave Stewart’s use of the word “payable” in a motion to the Council that eventually saw IDC go out of existence under an ignominious cloud before the money was paid from the Common Good Fund… but it was desperate stuff. Unfortunately, we now already have a bid to contest a quorate planning decision - which the club manager yesterday, deploying delightful metaphor, eloquently described as trying to keep replaying the game until they get the result they want - and that rearguard action already looks ominous. But what really worries me is that if we thought that the Council back in the 90s was bad…. the current local governance of Inverness is a whole lot worse. History is making me very uneasy about this one.

Where is this revisionism on here coming from? At the November meeting 14 of the 16 possible councillors turned up. Only 2 of them declared an interest due to them being on the ICT ladies team committee and in the ICT supporters club. That left 12. They voted to defer the decision for a site visit, which did the club a massive favour. Only 6 turned up at the site visit last week - that failure to attend eliminated another 6 from the vote(the councillors knew they would be excluded by not turning up). One of the remaining 6 later withdrew from the vote during the debate on Wednesday morning. That left 5. Instead of bleating about the chair (and 29 others) calling this out, you have to question why all these councillors were knowingly and willingly going into hiding and removing themselves from the vote on such a high profile and controversial application.

I’m nervous about the number of loans. However, Scott Young said at the Fans Meeting that there were clauses in some of the deals relating to what would happen depending on the number of appearances, with the implication that some of them may become permanent. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating but, from what I’ve seen so far, Kerr and Samuel are assets and I see potential in the young central defenders and McAllister. We’ve had an incredible player turnover. Only four starters on Saturday played at Hampden in June.

I don’t believe he was forced out as a move to the central belt worked for him. I don’t want to say more about the circumstances in a public forum but I believe a lot of us are aware and understand them.

Still to see Anderson do anything of value in an ICT shirt. MacGregor in for him now he's banned hopefully.

.......or maybe some in HC just are upset they never got some business trips, golf wknds and fancy meals during the engagement stage

At the original meeting it was pointed out that the club had refused to take up the offer of pre-submission advice from the planning dept.

2 games in a row we change the defence when it looks comfortable. 2 weeks in a row we ship 3 goals after that change.

The reality now is, the only two teams below us have games in hand against us. We’re also playing them both in the next 10 days.

Club are also forgetting thousands of people and of which I am sure loads are fans of the club , live around the area earmarked and do not want this near themselves or their children and schools alike . It’s funny how our chairman ( who funnily does not live in Inverness ) is making such a loud noise when he wants to . When you’re looking for a football voice of him or his CEO they go back in to their shell . I was beginning to think he couldn’t speak or didn’t understand our highland twang. Run the club in a football manner like it used to be . Stop paying excessive wages to Gardiner would be a start . Jobs for boys becoming tiresome and wasting so much money no wonder the club is in a mess . It’s been run by amateurs .

Agree. Big high risk projects whilst forgetting their core business which is football

One thing to note, regardless of anyones view of the Battery Park or the Board / CEO, is that the club is required to submit its accounts by the end of February. With the planning decision now delayed until March, the club may not get the necessary sign offs from their Auditors given the Battery Park is by no means certain. That threatens the very future of the club, as administration (or worse) become real possibilities.