Tree

Don't see how he could be faulted for any of the goals. The first was a 50:50 call as to 'sweep' or stay.

I keep reading about demanding the current board resign. What is the plan then? Unless there is a credible replacement ready then how does this improve things? Don't get me wrong. There is little so far from the board which gives confidence about their ability to progress a strategy to move forward, however unless a better and clear Plan B exists it is simply a fact that we will have to give time for the current board to progress forwards and the reality is that the current team is not capable of challenging for the title this year (and unless new investment comes in this may sadly be the case for some time to come). It is easy to demand new investment but this needs a willing investor. Otherwise a bottom up rebuilding needs to be implemented and this will take time.

And replace it with???

Almost certainly the reason that they asked Draper to request the move relates to contractual position around the transfer fee or other aspects of amounts due. In circumstance when players request a move they normally forfeit rights to various fees or %s for sell ons, etc. It seems pretty clear that Draper wanted the move. The rest is business and bluntly in our current circumstances we need to look after ourselves and players who want to stay with us. As IHE noted on another thread, we seem at the moment happy to slag off our current players but laud those who have moved on for whatever reason.

Do we actually have enough demand for a shop in town? In the past we have had stock in the Eastgate Centre in Debenhams, Zoo and a stall unit. On no occasion did I ever actually see anyone buying anything. Hard to see how sales will be sufficient to justify this.

Yesterday's team had 4 players who started last year. It will take time to gel as a unit and some of the comments are a bit OTT. We do look lacking in cutting edge up front though. Not helped by the fact that all 3 of our wingers are currently out injured.

New keeper same story.....

Dave King was only registered as a Director on passing test. Would explain resignation pending passing test......or could be an alternative baffling reason to match much of what has happened recently

Possibly awaits passing SFA Fit and Proper test to allow position to be taken up?

I stand corrected

Non-exec Directors are not Registered at Companies House. Only Exec Director are.

Typically the Chairman chairs the 'Main' Board of a Company. This may be made up with a mixture of Executive and Non-executive members. Separate Executive meetings and sub-boards will be common some of which may be restricted to executive members only. Directors are defined under law and have responsibilities and duties of which there are many. The non-executives are broadly tasked with providing scrutiny for the Shareholders by being separate from the day to day decisions requiring to be taken by company directors and wider employees. It is not good governance (though often occurs) for the Chairman to be executive and is frowned upon (but is allowable) to undertake the role of Chief Exec. As most will now have fallen asleep I'll now be brief in that the Main Board under the direction of the Chairman are responsible with dictating strategy and direction for the company (or in this case the club) with the Executive responsible for implementing these goals. In summary, the Chairman should not be a Director (but frequently is). Separate requirements outwith the Companies Act exist for Licensing Clubs via the SFA, etc

Best practice, for the purposes of Corporate Governance, etc, is that the Chairman is a Non-exec appointment and would not therefore be appointed as a Director. Many occasion where the Chairman is also a Director for numerous reasons.

It was obvious in the first half that the team had not played together previously. Without the aid of the wind in the 2nd half and with Draper/Leith being far more disciplined in positioning you are correct that Forres were rarely in the game in the 2nd half. There was a definite lack of end product however over the full part of the game and whilst Elbouzedi showed flashes there was rarely an end product to match (reminiscent of Mulraney??). Saw little in Davidson (though he was starting to come into the game when he came off). Would not be surprised if he has a broken foot and the tackle was poor (first foot caught the ball and second foot came through and got the player).

trialists are Chalmers, Leitch, Davidson, Oakley and Elbouzedi Ridgers on bench

It is the desire/intention for ICT to have a Colts team in the Highland League from season after next. Next season the players who would have played in the Development League will be loaned out to HL teams with an ICT Colts team the following season.

The new SFA Project Brave is a disaster waiting to happen. Only 5 clubs can afford the 6 full time development staff and break away meetings happening.

The downward spiral began whist JH was still here. The post split points we picked up flattered us and if you remove the points picked up against Aberdeen and County we had relegation fight form.

BBC keep referring to things happening in the background.....

Shareholders can call an EGM and look to vote in/out subject to the company articles

"One major flaw there would appear to be that these are volunteer directors who receive no remuneration" So you are telling me that we have no directors receiving any remuneration either directly or via business relationships with associated companies? If they are receiving indirect benefits as you suggest then this may well result in a conflict of interest and a breach of duties as Director. I doubt that this is therefore the case in a tangible form. "I wonder how many volunteers there would be to become directors if these were the rules? Absolutely no idea but I think you would find others outwith the current carefully selected members. The rules for limited companies are pretty clear and do not give any allowances to the "football type" business. If the directors have no financial responsibility then who should bear the losses? The people who bear the losses are called Shareholders. Shareholders may or may not be Directors but being appointed as a director does not imply any direct financial responsibility or consequential impact. One of the extensive duties of an appointed Directors is promoting the success of the company however I doubt it would be fair to conclude that every club that gets relegate has Directors acting contrary to duty. In normal circumstances if Shareholder believe that the board are not performing the Directors are removed.

Is there a similar clause stating he can be released if he is a liability in goal.......

The board are simply an extension of the real power behind the club. That person has been trying to offload his involvement for many years but awaits a pay off from someone coming in (and Savage has repeatedly refused to bite at this prospect).

The issue preventing Alan Savage being involved is Sutherland. Removal of those linked to him does not remove the basic stumbling block.

Meekings is 2 weeks away from return